Publicatie Consequences of Individuals Fit at Work

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
2005, 58, 281342
CONSEQUENCES OF INDIVIDUALS FIT AT WORK:

A META-ANALYSIS OF PERSONJOB,
PERSONORGANIZATION, PERSONGROUP,
AND PERSONSUPERVISOR FIT
AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN, RYAN D. ZIMMERMAN, ERIN C. JOHNSON
Henry B. Tippie College of Business
Department of Management & Organizations
University of Iowa
This meta-analysis investigated the relationships between personjob

(PJ), personorganization (PO), persongroup, and personsupervisor
fit with preentry (applicant attraction, job acceptance, intent to hire,
job offer) and postentry individual-level criteria (attitudes, performance,
withdrawal behaviors, strain, tenure). A search of published articles,
conference presentations, dissertations, and working papers yielded 172
usable studies with 836 effect sizes. Nearly all of the credibility intervals
did not include 0, indicating the broad generalizability of the relationships across situations. Various ways in which fit was conceptualized and
measured, as well as issues of study design, were examined as moderators to these relationships in studies of PJ and PO fit. Interrelationships
between the various types of fit are also meta-analyzed. 25 studies using
polynomial regression as an analytic technique are reviewed separately,
because of their unique approach to assessing fit. Broad themes emerging from the results are discussed to generate the implications for future
research on fit.
Theories of person-environment (PE) interaction have been prevalent

in the management literature for almost 100 years (e.g., Ekehammer, 1974;
Lewin, 1935; Murray, 1938; Parsons, 1909; Pervin, 1968), making it one
of the more venerable lines of psychological theorizing (Dawis, 1992). It
is against this interactionist backdrop that the concept of PE fit emerged.
Described as a syndrome with many manifestations (Schneider, 2001,
p. 142), PE fit is broadly defined as the compatibility between an individual
and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well
matched. Despite, or perhaps because of, the simplicity of this definition,
several distinct types of fit have garnered attention. Much emphasis has
The authors are indebted to the encouragement & feedback provided by SAPS and Frank
Schmidt.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Amy L. Kristof-Brown,
University of Iowa, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, Department of Management
& Organizations, 108 Pappajohn Business Building, Iowa City, IA 52242; amy-kristofbrown@uiowa.edu.
C 2005 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.
COPYRIGHT
281
282
been placed on the match between peoples interests and those of others
in a vocation (e.g., Holland, 1985). However, other types of fit, such as an
individuals compatibility with his or her job, organization, work group,
and supervisors have also emerged as important research domains.
Although research on these other types of fit has been prolific, rarely
has it been synthesized to draw conclusions about the true impact of fit
on individual-level outcomes. Some progress toward integration has been
made. However, most reviews have been nonquantitative, not differentiated between various types of fit, or focused solely on single types of PE
fit. Edwards (1991) provided a comprehensive qualitative review of PE fit
studies published between 1960 and 1989, but did not include a quantitative analysis of the strength of the reported relationships. Furthermore, his
review did not distinguish between fit with the job, group, organization,
or vocation, which have been shown to have unique relationships with attitudes and behaviors (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Another qualitative review
conducted almost 10 years ago by Kristof (1996) focused exclusively on
the personorganization fit literature. A portion of this literature was recently meta-analyzed but only for a limited range of criteria (job attitudes)
and a small number of effect sizes (k = 21; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner,
2003). Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the more nascent
area of persongroup fit or to related topics such as personsupervisor fit.
Given the qualitative focus, limited scope, and somewhat dated nature of
these past summaries, a quantitative analysis of various types of PE fit is
warranted.
The biggest challenge to this type of analysis is the proliferation of
conceptualizations, measures, and analytic approaches that make fit an
elusive construct (Judge & Ferris, 1992). Fit has alternatively been conceptualized as similarity, needsatisfaction, and demandability match.
Further, it has been operationalized using a variety of content dimensions,
including skills, needs, preferences, values, personality traits, goals, and
attitudes. Strategies for measuring fit also vary widely, from directly asking
individuals to report their perceived fit to researchers indirectly assessing
fit through explicit comparisons of separately rated P and E characteristics. When indirect assessments are used, E may be the subjective environment as assessed by the individual or the objective environment as
determined by other sources. Moreover, the environment can be conceptualized as an entity with its own unique characteristics or as an aggregate
of its members characteristics. Sampling strategies and the potential for
common method bias also vary widely across studies, rendering interpretation of some results problematic. Although this diversity poses a
challenge to integration, it may also produce systematic variations in reported fitoutcome relationships. Much of this meta-analysis, therefore, is
concerned with articulating theory-driven rationale for moderators of the
AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.
283
fitoutcome relationships and evaluating the empirical evidence regarding

their impact.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to empirically summarize the
existing literature in four critical domains of PE fit: personjob, person
organization, persongroup, and personsupervisor fit. Specifically, we
address the relationship between these types of fit and individual-level
preentry outcomes (applicant attraction, job acceptance, intent to hire,
job offer) and postentry consequences (attitudes, withdrawal behaviors,
strain, performance, and tenure). Delving deeper into these meta-analytic
findings, we examine multiple moderators of fitoutcome relationships
including various conceptualizations, operationalizations, and measurement approaches, as well as study design. In addition, because of the recent growth in studies using a polynomial regression approach (Edwards,
1993, 1994) to study fit indirectly, we also review these studies. However,
because the interpretation of the multiple correlations from polynomial regressions is ambiguous, we describe the general forms of the relationships
depicted in these studies, rather than meta-analyze them. This allows us to
comprehensively review the fit literature before drawing conclusions. In
the discussion section we review the implications of our findings, propose
a coherent agenda for future research, offer methodological guidance for
future studies of fit, and present practical guidance for how to capitalize
on the benefits of fit.
Types of PersonEnvironment Fit
Based in the tradition of interactional psychology, the notion of people

being differentially compatible with jobs, groups, organizations, and vocations is almost axiomatic. The concept of PE fit has been described as, so
pervasive as to be one of, if not the dominant conceptual forces in the field
(Schneider, 2001, p. 142). It is not surprising, therefore, that management
scholars have a sustained interest in the fit between individuals and their
work environments. Perhaps in part because of this interest, research on
fit continues to be one of the most eclectic domains in management. We
briefly review the primary types of fit to establish and articulate the criteria
used for inclusion and exclusion of studies in our analyses.
Person Environment Interactions
Interactional psychology includes numerous studies that assess PE fit

as a statistical interaction between the person and environment. Personality may be investigated as a moderator of environmental forces, as in
the case of growth need strength moderating the job characteristicsjob
satisfaction relationship (e.g., Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller,
284
& Fitzgerald, 1985), or situations may be viewed as moderators of the

personalityoutcome relationships (e.g., Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, &
Barrick, 2004; Turban, Lau, Ngo, Chow, & Si, 2001). Despite their conceptual appeal, moderator studies rarely conceptualize the person and environment on commensurate dimensions. Without this standard it is impossible
to directly compare P and E values, a fundamental property of the PE
fit theory (Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998; French, Rogers & Cobb,
1974). Thus, we address only studies that measure P and E on commensurate dimensions. Even when commensurate dimensions are used, there
are additional complications with P E interaction studies (e.g., Arnaud,
Ambrose, & Schminke, 2002; Goodman & Syvantek, 1999; Judge & Bretz,
1992; Lievens, Decaesteker, & Coetsier, 2001). First, multiple correlations
that are typically reported as effect sizes include main effects as well as
interaction effects, rendering them inconsistent with other fit measures.
Second, the interaction between person and environment variables does
not reflect their proximity to one another (Edwards et al., 1998, p. 41), a
necessary precondition for fit.
Person-Vocation Fit
PE fit research is generally characterized by matching individuals to

various levels of their work environment (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof,
1996). The broadest of these levels is the vocation or occupation. This
research on personvocation (PV) fit includes vocational choice theories that propose matching people with careers that meet their interests
(e.g., Holland, 1985; Parsons, 1909; Super, 1953), and the theory of work
adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1969), which emphasizes that adjustment and satisfaction are the result of employees needs
being met by their occupational environment. Because this research has
been extensively reviewed by others (Assouline & Meir, 1987; Spokane,
1985; Tranberg, Slane, & Ekeberg, 1993), we do not include it in our
analyses.
Personjob Fit
Instead, we emphasize an area closely related to PV fit but defined more

narrowly as the relationship between a persons characteristics and those
of the job or tasks that are performed at work. This is the domain of person
job (PJ) fit (e.g., Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996). Edwards (1991) outlined
two basic conceptualizations of the PJ fit. The first is the demands-abilities
fit, in which employees knowledge, skills, and abilities are commensurate with what the job requires. The second form of PJ fit occurs when
285
employees needs, desires, or preferences are met by the jobs that they
perform. This type of fit, often labeled needssupplies or suppliesvalues
fit, has been the emphasis of various theories of adjustment, well-being, and
satisfaction (Caplan, 1983; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1974; Harrison,
1978; Locke, 1969; Porter, 1961, 1962).
Having restricted our definition of fit to the compatibility that results
from personal and environmental characteristics being well matched, it
was necessary to exclude research on related but distinct topics. Studies
of underemployment (e.g., Feldman, Leana, & Bolino, 2002), overqualification (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1999), role overload (e.g., Netemeyer,
Burton, & Johnston, 1995), and relative deprivation (Feldman et al., 2002)
were not included because measures of these concepts typically assess the
degree to which there is misfit in only one direction. Studies of met expectations were also not included (e.g., Bunderson, 2001). This decision
was based on Schneiders reasoning that a persons expectations probably represent some modification of his preferences based on information
(1975, p. 460). Thus, they are likely to be tempered by reality or past
experiences, rather than reflect the individuals characteristics, which are
the basis for fit.
PersonOrganization Fit
Research on personorganization (PO) fit, which addresses the compatibility between people and entire organizations, is the second type of fit
we review. Beginning with Toms (1971) suggestion that individuals will
be most successful in organizations that share their personalities, research
has emphasized individualorganizational similarity as the crux of PO fit.
Some research has followed Toms (1971) operationalization of PO fit as
personalityclimate congruence (e.g., Christiansen, Villanova, & Mikulay,
1997; Ryan & Schmitt, 1996); however, Chatmans (1989) seminal theory of PO fit focused attention primarily on values. With the subsequent
validation of the Organizational Culture Profile (OReilly, Chatman, &
Caldwell, 1991), a values-based instrument, value congruence became
widely accepted as the defining operationalization of PO fit (Kristof, 1996;
Verquer et al., 2003). A lesser used but theoretically consistent operationalization is PO goal congruence (e.g., Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991; Witt &
Nye, 1992). In all cases, the emphasis is on the compatibility between
commensurate individual and organizational characteristics.
Excluded from our analysis are studies that assess agreement on organizational culture or climate. For example, studies of climate discrepancy
(e.g., Joyce & Slocum, 1982) typically ask participants to describe the
climate in their organizations. Thus, they typically do not assess how
well the climate matches participants personal characteristics or meets
286
their needs, as much as the extent to which an individuals perception

concurs with others. Similarly, climate strength studies (e.g., Schneider,
Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002) emphasize within-group consistency in
climate perceptions, rather than individuals fit with the organizational
characteristics. Therefore, studies in both of these areas were not deemed
relevant to this analysis.
PersonGroup Fit
The third category of research we review is persongroup (PG) or

personteam fit, which focuses on the interpersonal compatibility between
individuals and their work groups (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof, 1996;
Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). Of all types of fit, PG fit research is the most
nascent. Despite high levels of interest in coworker similarity on demographic variables (e.g., Riordan, 2000), little research has emphasized
how the psychological compatibility between coworkers influences individual outcomes in group settings. Only a handful of published studies
have examined the fit on characteristics such as goals (Kristof-Brown &
Stevens, 2001; Witt, 1998) or values (Adkins, Ravlin, & Meglino, 1996;
Becker, 1992; Good & Nelson, 1971). There are, however, several studies
that have examined PG fit on personality traits (Barsade, Ward, Turner,
& Sonnenfeld, 2000; Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2003; Kristof-Brown,
Barrick, & Stevens, in press; Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999; Strauss,
Barrick, & Connerley, 2001).
These studies are distinct from research on team similarity or homogeneity (e.g., Barry & Stewart, 1997; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale,
1999) and studies that aggregate individuals fit to the unit level (e.g.,
Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar, 2002; Ostroff, 1993; Salvaggio, 2004).
These aggregate-level studies predict unit-level outcomes, rather than
individual-level criteria that we emphasize. Studies by Ostroff and
Rothhausen (1997) and Vancouver, Millsap, and Peters (1994) demonstrate that fitoutcome relationships differ when they are assessed at higher
levels of analysis, underscoring the need to differentiate aggregate-level
fit studies from others.
Research on relational demography is also excluded from our review.
Although demography assesses a persons similarity to group members to
predict individual-level outcomes, the emphasis is exclusively on demographic variables (such as race, age, gender). Milliken and Martins (1996)
and Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998) categorize demographic variables as
surface-level or easily observable attributes and contrast them with other
deep-level, underlying characteristics such as values or goals. Harrison
et al. (1998) demonstrated that there are meaningful differences between
287
similarity on these types of characteristics, and that over time it is fit on

deep-level characteristics that has the greatest impact on outcomes.
PersonSupervisor Fit
A final form of PE fit exists in the dyadic relationships between individuals and others in their work environments. Although dyadic fit
may occur between coworkers (e.g., Antonioni & Park, 2001), applicants and recruiters (e.g., Graves & Powell, 1995), and mentors and
proteges (e.g., Turban & Dougherty, 1994), by far the most well-researched
area is the match between supervisors and subordinates (e.g., Adkins,
Russel, & Werbel, 1994; Van Vianen, 2000). Given the limited number
of studies on other types of dyadic fit and the importance of supervisor
subordinate relationships on work outcomes (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner,
2001), the final area we meta-analyze is personsupervisor (PS) fit. Studies of leaderfollower value congruence (e.g., Colbert, 2004; Krishnan,
2002), supervisorsubordinate personality similarity (Schaubroeck &
Lam, 2002), and manageremployee goal congruence (e.g., Witt, 1998) are
included in this category. In each case, the supervisors personal characteristics represented the environment. Studies in which supervisors reported
work group or organizational characteristics (e.g., Becker, 1992; Becker,
Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996) were classified as either PG or PO fit,
respectively.
Related to the PS fit domain is research on leader member exchange
(LMX; e.g., Graen, 1976) and perceptual similarity (e.g., Wexley &
Pulakos, 1983). Although each of these areas emphasizes the dyadic interactions between individuals, they are excluded from this review. In the
case of LMX, the emphasis is on the nature of the relationship that develops between leaders and followers not the match of their underlying
psychological characteristics. Therefore, only LMX studies that also examine PS fit are included in our analyses. Studies of perceptual similarity,
that is, similarity between a subordinates description of the manager and
the managers self-description were also excluded, because they assess
accuracy of perceptions rather than fit.
Moderator Analyses
Even after these exclusions, there is still remarkable heterogeneity in

the way that fit has been conceptualized and measured. A thorough understanding of fits influence on individual-level outcomes must account for
these differences. Next, we provide theory-driven rationale for conceptual and methodological issues that we expect to moderate fitoutcome
288
relationships, with an emphasis on PJ and PO fit because of the number

of studies available on these topics.
Conceptualizations of Fit
Complementary versus supplementary. Muchinsky and Monahan

(1987, pp. 268269) highlighted a troubling oversight in the PE fit literature when they noted that although personenvironment congruence
refers to the degree of fit or match between the two sets of variables . . . what
exactly constitutes a fit or match is not totally clear. In response to this
ambiguity, they proposed two distinct conceptualizations of PE fit: complementary and supplementary fit. For complementary fit, the basis for
a good fit is the mutually offsetting pattern of relevant characteristics between the person and the environment (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987,
pp. 272). Although they operationalized this type of fit strictly as individuals skills meeting environmental needs (demandsabilities fit), Kristof
(1996) expanded the definition to include when individuals needs are met
by environmental supplies (needssupplies fit). Thus, complementary fit
occurs when individuals characteristics fill a gap in the current environment, or vice versa. The second major conceptualization of fit, supplementary fit, exists when the individual and the environment are similar.
Whereas complementary conceptualizations of fit have dominated the PJ
fit literature, supplementary fit has been the focus of other types of fit.
Theories of need fulfillment (e.g., Locke, 1976; Rice, McFarlin, Hunt,
& Near, 1985) explain the primary mechanism by which complementary
needssupplies fit influences attitudes. These theories share the common
proposition that people will experience more positive job attitudes when
their needs are satisfied. Recently, it has been argued that supplementary
fit may also function through the process of need fulfillment (Van Vianen,
2000). Theories such as Festingers theory of social comparison (1954),
Heiders balanced state theory (Heider, 1958), and Byrnes similarityattraction paradigm (1971) all suggest that people have a fundamental
need for consensual validation of their perspectives, which can be met by
interacting with similar others. Therefore, achieving supplementary fit is
one way to have personal needs met, but obtaining needssupplies fit is
more direct. Therefore, we expect that supplementary fit will have a somewhat weaker relationship with job attitudes than does needssupplies fit.
Consistent with this logic, demandsabilities fit should have the smallest
relationship with job attitudes because it emphasizes meeting environmental, rather than individual needs.
We expect a different pattern of relationships for nonattitudinal criteria, such as performance, strain, or turnover. If a person does not
have the requisite abilities to meet situational demands, overall and
task performance are likely to suffer. Even contextual performance may
289
decline, if employees do not have adequate attentional resources (Kanfer

& Ackerman, 1989) to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors
because they are being stretched by task demands. Strain should be high
under such conditions, and turnover may result because of consistent underperformance. This implies a stronger effect for demandsabilities fit
on the aforementioned criteria. However, needssupplies and supplementary fit are also likely to affect these outcomes. The theory of reasoned
action suggests that attitudes toward a given object will generally result
in behaviors that are consistent with those attitudes (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1977; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Thus, if individuals needs are being met
at work, resulting positive attitudes may mitigate strain, facilitate higher
performance, and reduce turnover. Nonetheless, because proficiency matters to outcomes of strain, performance, and turnover, we expect that the
impact of demandsabilities fit will be greater than the other conceptualizations of fit. Studies that include multiple conceptualizations of fit (i.e.,
assess needssupplies and demandsabilities fit) should produce stronger
effects than those using single conceptualizations because they tap into
multiple mechanisms by which fit has an impact.
Content dimensions of PE fit. Further complicating research on PE fit
is the variety of content dimensions used to operationalize fit. The decision
on what dimensions or characteristics to use is somewhat determined by the
broader conceptualization of fit being explored. For example, a demands
abilities fit is almost exclusively based on the content dimensions of individuals KSAs and job or organizational demands. However, with growing recognition of the importance of personality on work performance
(Barrick & Mount, 1991), a few studies have expanded the demandsabilities fit to include personality traits and values (e.g., Edwards, 1996;
Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Similarly, a needssupplies fit, which has
traditionally emphasized individuals needs and preferences, can also be
considered to include value preferences, or what types of values a person
wants in an organization. For example, the wording of the original Organizational Culture Profile (OCP; OReilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991)
requests that respondents indicate what values they prefer or want in an organization, rather than what their personal values actually are. These scores
are then compared to what they receive from the organization. Worded in
such a way, studies using the original OCP assess value-fulfillment which
corresponds more directly to needssupplies complementary fit.
Studies of supplementary fit have traditionally used the broadest array of content dimensions. With roots in theories of interpersonal attraction (Byrne, 1971) and the attractionselectionattrition framework
(Schneider, 1987), supplementary fit requires that P and E are at similar
levels on commensurate dimensions. These dimensions may include values, goals, personality traits, or attitudes. For example, Cable and Judge
(1996) shortened the OCP and revised it to be more clearly a measure of
290
supplementary fit, by rephrasing the questions to What values are most

indicative of you? [emphasis added] and What values are most indicative
of the organization? Personality and goals have also been used to assess
supplementary fit in the domains of PO, PG, and PS fit (e.g., Adkins et al.,
1994; Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001; Ryan & Schmit, 1996; Witt & Nye,
1992).
Reviews of fit often contain heated debates about the relative merits
of these dimensions and how they should be measured (e.g., Edwards,
1994; Kristof, 1996; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1991). This has been
particularly true in the domain of PO fit. Chatman (1991) argued for values as the basis of PO fit because values are enduring characteristics of
individuals and organizations. Yet, Ryan and Kristof-Brown (2003) suggested that personality traits are more stable, proximal to behavior, and
visible in others behavior than are values. They conclude, therefore, that
personality-based PO fit should have at least as strong as, if not a stronger,
influence on individuals attitudes and behaviors than would values-based
fit (p. 266). An important consideration, however, is that although similarity on values is believed to be universally desirable (Meglino & Ravlin,
1998), sometimes personality dissimilarity may be preferable (Carson,
1969). For example, Kristof-Brown et al. (in press) demonstrate that people high on extraversion feel more attraction to their teams if the other
members are more introverted, and vice versa. If similarity on some traits,
but not others, is desirable, then overall personality congruence should
have weaker relationships with outcomes than does value congruence. Alternatively, for goals, PO congruence should always be preferable. Sharing
goals makes it more likely that individuals will receive support and reinforcement for goal attainment. However, goals are less stable than values.
Therefore, compared to other supplementary fit dimensions, we expect that
goals will result in effect sizes greater than personality-based measures,
but less than values-based measures. KSA-based studies of PO fit are rare,
although some authors have included requisite KSAs into measures that
combine multiple content dimensions to assess fit. For example, Bretz
and Judge (1994) assessed fit along the dimensions of values, personality,
needs, and KSAs. By including each of these dimensions, such combined
measures are likely to capture a more holistic assessment of fit. Therefore,
it is expected that studies using combined measures will report stronger
effect sizes than studies assessing just value congruence.
Measurement of Fit
Direct versus indirect measures. A potentially meaningful distinction

between types of fit studies is whether they assess fit directly or indirectly
291
(Kristof, 1996). Most scholars agree that perceived fit1 is defined by a

direct assessment of compatibility (French et al., 1974; Kristof, 1996).
Kristof (1996) distinguished this from actual fit, an inclusive term used
to describe measures in which researchers indirectly assess fit through
explicit comparisons of separately rated P and E variables. French et
al. (1974) further differentiated such explicit comparisons into subjective fit, defined as the match between the person and environment as they
are perceived and reported by the person, and objective fit as the match
between the person as he or she really is and the environment as it exists independently of the persons perception of it (French et al., 1974,
p. 316). Over the years, the terms perceived and subjective fit have often
been used interchangeably (e.g., Cable & DeRue, 2002; Judge & Cable,
1997; Kristof, 1996). However, because the cognitive processes underlying each may differ, we believe it is important to distinguish between these
types of fit. Thus, we use the terms as follows: (a) perceived fit, when an
individual makes a direct assessment of the compatibility between P and
E; (b) subjective fit, when fit is assessed indirectly through the comparison of P and E variables reported by the same person; and (c) objective
fit, when fit is calculated indirectly through the comparison of P and E
variables as reported by different sources.
When an individual has a high degree of contact with reality (i.e., assesses the environment accurately) and an accurate self-assessment, these
three types of fit should have similar relationships with criteria (French
et al., 1974). In practice, however, they are often only weakly related
(Cable & Judge, 1997; Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001). This may be due
to individuals propensity to interpret environmental cues in ways that allow them to maintain a positive self-concept (Endler & Magnussen, 1976;
French et al., 1974). Both self-perception theory (Bem, 1967) and cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) suggest that individuals are driven
to maintain internally consistent perceptions. It would produce cognitive
dissonance for an individual to appraise a work environment as providing
a poor fit but still report a high level of satisfaction with that environment. Therefore, it is likely that perceived, subjective, and objective fit
differ not only in how they are measured but also in what they represent
conceptually.
Perceived fit allows the greatest level of cognitive manipulation because the assessment is all done in the head of the respondents, allowing
them to apply their own weighting scheme to various aspects of the environment. This permits individual differences in importance or salience of
1
Note that we define perceived and subjective fit to be consistent with French et al.s
(1974) original use of the terms, but these labels are reversed in Verquer et al. (2003).
292
various dimensions to be captured in their ratings. Alternatively, indirect

measures require separate ratings across specific P and E dimensions, and
each dimension is weighted equally. Indirect measures of subjective fit
still have P and E variables assessed by the same source, which does not
fully negate consistency biases. Because both perceived and subjective fit
are assessed by a single source, we expect that they will have similar effects on outcomes, particularly attitudes, with perceived fit having slightly
stronger effects because it allows a single individual to report a holistic
assessment of fit and is more prone to consistency effects.
Compared to perceived and subjective fit, objective fit is a less proximal determinant of attitudes and behavior (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Yet,
unless people are completely removed from reality, the objective environment should have some influence on their perceptions of E. The objective
environment may be made quite clear in experimental studies that use descriptions of the environment (e.g., Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002; Judge &
Bretz, 1992; Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002). In addition, strong
organizational cultures and the shared perceptions of coworkers constitute
socially derived environments that have been found to have a meaningful
impact on how people react to their work situations (e.g., Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). However, because this objective
reality must be filtered through individuals perceptions, we expect that
objective fit will have the weakest relationships with most criteria. However, this decrease should be less pronounced for performance criteria
than for attitudes because maximum performance should be limited by an
objective demandability mismatch.
Study Design
Assessing the environment. In cases of objective fit, Van Vianen

(2000) implied another potential moderator when she differentiated between the fit of a person with an organization and the fit of a person
with the people in the organization. Although Schneiders (1987) ASA
framework purports that the people make the place, group effects theory (e.g., Blau, 1960; Merton & Kitt, 1950) and theories of organizational
culture (e.g., Levinthal & March, 1993; Schein, 1992) suggest that higherlevel units are more than the aggregate of attributes of their members.
Thus, it may be overly simplistic to assume that the arithmetic mean of
the people in a unit can capture the extent of culture or climate. Because aggregate personal characteristics reflect current members only,
whereas culture and climate reflect the totality of a units history, we expect weaker relationships between fit and criteria in studies using aggregate
members personal characteristics, rather than perceptions of the overall
unit.
293
Sampling strategy. Recent results have demonstrated that metaanalytic estimates are not stable when single-unit (e.g., job, group,
organization) samples and multi-unit samples are combined (Gully,
Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002; Ostroff & Harrison, 1999; Roth,
Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, & Tyler, 2001). Although PG and PS studies necessitate multi-unit samples to obtain adequate sample size, PJ and PO
studies are often conducted for one job or within one organization. Therefore, single- versus multi-unit samples are a potential moderator for these
types of fit. Because multi-unit samples permit a broader range of environments to be represented, there is reason to expect that fit relationships will
be stronger in multi-unit samples. However, Chatman (1989) noted that fit
will be most influential in strong situations. Therefore, when a single-unit
environment is strong, relationships should be greater than in multi-unit
samples, but the reverse is true for single-unit samples with weak environments. Because of these competing rationales, we are unable to predict
the direction that this moderator will take.
Common method bias. Finally, it is important to address concerns
that have been raised regarding the heavy reliance on single-source reporting of fitoutcome relationships (Edwards, 1993; Van Vianen, in press).
Despite general awareness that common rater bias can inflate reported
effect sizes, particularly for attitudeattitude relationships (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), PE fit studies often include predictor and outcome variables reported by the same person. This is particularly
problematic for studies that examine the relationship between perceived
or subjective fit and attitudes. Because common rater bias can produce
artifactual covariance due to consistency biases and illusory correlations
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), we anticipate that the strongest effect sizes will
be reported for studies in which fit and the criteria are rated by the same
individual, followed by those using a rater for two of the three potential
variables (P, E, and criteria), and finally by those using separate ratings of
everything.
One approach to reducing the impact of common rater bias, which
is primarily a concern in fitattitude studies, is to temporally separate
the measurement of the predictor and criterion. Because a time delay
should reduce consistency and illusory correlations between constructs
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), we expect larger effect sizes between fit and
attitudes measured concurrently versus at different points in time.
Comparing Types of Fit
It is worth mentioning why we do not treat type of fit (PJ, PO, PG,
PS) as a moderator. Because each type of fit represents compatibility with
different aspects of the environment, and has been shown to have unique
294
impacts on outcomes (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof-Brown, 2000), we

analyze each separately. However, we do anticipate differences in the relative magnitude of each type with various criteria. Research has shown that
job-related constructs are most strongly associated with attitudes about
the job, whereas organization-related constructs are more closely related
to organizational attitudes (Shore & Martin, 1989). In the domain of fit,
job satisfaction should be most strongly associated with PJ fit, organizational commitment with PO fit, satisfaction with coworkers with PG fit,
and satisfaction with supervisor with PS fit. Other criteria, such as intent
to quit, tenure, and turnover are likely to be influenced by multiple types
of fit because they represent attitudes or behaviors relevant to the total
work experience (Barber, 1998; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez,
2001). The same is expected for organizational attraction because applicants generally get recruited based on elements of the job and organization
simultaneously. However, intent to hire is expected to be more related to
PJ than PO fit because the emphasis of most selection techniques is to
assess whether the applicant has the requisite job-related skills (Bowen,
Ledford, & Nathan, 1991).
Whereas task performance is highly dependent on skill-based job proficiency, contextual performance has volition and predisposition as its
major source of variation and is not likely to be role-prescribed (Borman
& Motowidlo, 1997). It is more directed toward helping and cooperating
with others, supporting the organizations mission, and putting in extra
effort when necessary. Therefore, PJ fit should have the greatest impact
on task performance, whereas contextual performance is more likely to
be influenced by PO or PG fit. Because overall performance contains both
task and contextual elements, all types of fit should be relevant.
Although we treat the various types of fit separately, it is informative
to examine the relationships between them. Kristof (1996) called for an
increase in research that simultaneously examines multiple types of fit,
and recent studies show a trend in this direction (e.g., Cable & Derue,
2002; Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Because of their emphasis on the people in
the environment, and on needsupplies and supplementary fit conceptualizations, we expect that PO, PG, and PS fit will be more strongly related to
each other than to PJ fit. This should particularly be true for cases of PJ fit
that reflect a demandsabilities perspective, rather than a needssupplies
perspective. Moreover, because relationships with coworkers and supervisors are involved in everyday work experiences, we anticipated that PS and
PG fit would be more strongly related than either one with PO fit, which
may be tempered by the closer relationships with colleagues. Finally, we
expect that all relationships between types of fit will be ameliorated when
a direct versus indirect measurement strategy is used because of the increased likelihood of consistency effects in measures of perceived fit.
295
Polynomial Regression
One of the most dramatic changes to studies of PE fit in recent years

was the introduction of polynomial regression as an alternative to Profile
Similarity Indices (PSIs) for assessing fit indirectly. PSIs include difference scores, a category of indices including (D, |D|, D1 , D2 , and Mahalanobis D), base fit measures on the sum of differences between P and E
profile elements (Edwards, 1993). They also include profile correlations,
which assess similarity in the rank ordering of elements within P and
E profiles (Edwards, 1993). Despite the prevalence of these approaches
and their ability to capture the holistic nature of fit, they engendered
criticism around issues of conceptual ambiguity, discarded information,
insensitivity to the source of differences, and overly restrictive constraints
(Cronbach, 1958; Edwards, 1993; Nunally, 1962).
In response to these concerns, Edwards (1993, 1994, 1996) suggested
using polynomial regression to assess PE fit. Fundamentally, this approach
avoids collapsing person and environment measures into a single score that
captures fit. Instead, both P and E, and associated higher-order terms
(P2 , P E, and E2 ) are included as predictors. Because the P and E and the
dependent variables are all unique, fit relationships are depicted in threedimensional surface plots. Although effect sizes can be calculated from
the multiple correlations of these studies, these include main and quadratic
effects not present in direct or PSI measures of fit, rendering a metaanalysis of their results ambiguous. To determine whether a fit relationship
is supported, characteristics of the surface plot must be examined. Results
often depict more complicated relationships than are determinable with
PSIs (e.g., Edwards, 1993, 1996). Because of their increased usage, as well
as the potentially useful insights that they provide regarding the nature of
fit, we include a qualitative summary of their findings in our review.
Method
Data Collection
To identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analyses, we searched

several social science databases and national conference programs using
the following key words: fit, congruence, similarity, interaction, person
environment, personorganization, personjob, personculture, person
group, personteam, personsupervisor, and supervisorsubordinate.
Specifically, we searched the American Psychological Associations
PsycINFO (18872003), ABI Inform (19712003), and Dissertation
Abstracts International (18612003) databases for relevant studies. To
obtain unpublished or in-press research we searched the Society for
296
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (19952004) and Academy of

Management (19942004) annual conference programs using the search
terms. We also conducted a manual search of our files and reviewed
the reference lists of other summaries (Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996;
Verquer et al., 2003) to identify relevant articles missed in the computerized search. Finally, we contacted 24 prominent fit researchers and
asked them to share their emerging or unpublished research relating
to fit.
Using these search procedures, we identified over 750 total studies,
which we then screened to determine their relevance. We excluded nonempirical studies (e.g., review articles, conceptual articles) and articles on topics previously described as outside the purview of this review. Additional
exclusions were studies conducted in nonwork contexts (e.g., Burnett,
Vaughan, & Moody, 1997; Luke, Roberts, & Rappaport, 1993; OReilly
& Chatman, 1986) and those examining fit between people and national
cultures (e.g., Harrison, Shaffer, & Bhaskar, 2002; Van Vianen, De Pater,
Kristof-Brown, & Johnson, 2004).
All work-related outcomes were considered for inclusion, but in general, only those having five or more total correlations or a total sample
size of over 1,000 are reported here. A few exceptions are made for
moderator analyses or criteria that are conceptually relevant to PG and
PS fit, which have a small number of total studies. Preentry criteria included organizational attraction and job acceptance reported by applicants, and intent to hire and job offers from the organization. Postentry
outcome variables included job satisfaction, organizational satisfaction,
coworker satisfaction, cohesion, supervisor satisfaction, LMX, organizational commitment, organizational identification, intentions to quit,
trust in manager, politics, task performance, contextual performance,
overall performance, withdrawal behaviors, strain, turnover, and concurrent tenure. Not all dependent variables were available for all types
of fit.
For studies that assessed perceived fit, the correlations of these direct
measures with the criteria were used to represent the effect size. For studies
assessing subjective or objective fit using a PSI, correlations of the calculated fit term and the criteria were generally reported. In a small number of
studies, an F-statistic or t-statistic was converted to a correlation (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983). After evaluating the studies based on the inclusion criteria,
172 codable studies, producing 836 unique effect sizes, were available for
our meta-analyses. Sixty-two studies with 225 effect sizes were included in
the PJ fit meta-analyses; 110 studies with 450 effect sizes were included in
the PO fit meta-analyses; 20 studies with 104 effect sizes were included
in the PG fit meta-analyses; and 17 studies with 57 effect sizes were
297
included in the PS fit meta-analyses.2 Twenty-seven studies provided 34

correlations between various types of fit. Twenty-five additional studies
reported polynomial regression results, which are qualitatively reviewed.
All studies included in the meta-analyses are indicated in the reference
section, as are the polynomial regression studies.
Data Coding
We coded the characteristics of each study on multiple dimensions.

Specifically, we coded the following: type of fit (PJ, PG, PO, and PS),
context (preentry vs. postentry), sample size, effect size, and reliability
of measures. We also coded for potential moderators. First, we coded the
conceptualization of fit: supplementary, complementary needssupplies,
complementary demandsabilities or combined (any combination of the
previous three types). Second, we coded for the content dimension on
which fit was assessed: values, personality, needs, goals, KSAs, combined
measures (i.e., including multiple content dimensions), or other (e.g., strategy). Third, we coded whether direct measures of perceived fit or indirect
measures of objective or subjective fit were used. Within the subgroup of
studies that used objective measures, we coded whether the environment
was assessed as an independent entity or as the aggregation of members
characteristics. We coded all PJ and PO studies for whether the sampling
strategy was single unit or multi unit. Finally, to assess the impact of common method bias we coded studies with performance criteria as using all
common raters (ACR), partially common raters (PCR), or no common
rater (NCR), and studies with attitudinal criteria as collecting predictors
and criteria concurrently or separated in time.
Each article was coded independently by at least two of the authors.
Coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion and by referring
to the information provided in the original article and in the coding definitions. Given the ambiguities inherent in many of these studies, we found
the use of multiple raters per article to be beneficial. After a preliminary discussion of sample articles, average agreement calculated across
all codes for a random subsample of 15% of the studies was 97%.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
We conducted the meta-analyses using the formulas from Hunter

and Schmidt (2004), with the aid of the meta-analytic software program
2
If fit was assessed on multiple facets of a content dimension (e.g., fit on four separate
values), the correlations were averaged to create one effect size.
298
developed by Schmidt and Le (2004). The means and variances of the metaanalytic estimates were corrected for artifactual variance due to sampling
error and attenuation due to measurement error in the predictor and the
criterion. Because the purpose of this study was to provide a meaningful
estimate of the relationship between fit and various criteria, correcting for
attenuation in both the predictor and the criterion was necessary. Reliabilities for the predictor and criterion were not available in each study;
therefore, we used artifact distributions to correct for measurement error
in both (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). This was done by utilizing the information contained in all studies that did report reliability estimates for
either the predictor or criteria variables in question. A single distribution
of reliabilities was then created for each variable based on these estimates,
and this distribution was used to correct the appropriate variable for unreliability. Note that in order to best estimate the artifact distribution for
a given variable, the same distribution was used for that variable across
all meta-analyses. This was done to better reflect the true distribution of
reliabilities in the population, rather than just in the subset of studies for
a given meta-analysis.
Because reliabilities are not available for objective criteria (tenure,
turnover, withdrawal, job offer, and job acceptance), no correction for
measurement error was made for these variables. In addition, no correction
was made for dichotomization in turnover because almost none of the
studies provided turnover rates, and this type of correction is not without
controversy (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Williams, 1990). For studies that
used a difference score to calculate fit, the reliability of the difference
score was calculated when enough information was provided in the study
(i.e., the reliability of the person scale and the environment scale, and the
correlation between the two scales; Hunter & Cohen, 1974). Finally, the
population of interest and the population examined in each study were the
same and therefore no correction for range restriction was needed. This
was true even when fit was examined in a preentry setting, as the criteria
of interest in those settings were either job acceptance or job offer.
It is important to note that several of the studies measured fit in multiple
ways for the same sample and criteria. To ensure that the assumption of
independent samples was not violated (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), no more
than one effect size from a study was included in each meta-analysis. If
there were multiple effect sizes from a single study (e.g., correlations
from a perceived PJ measure and a subjective PJ fit measure with job
satisfaction), then the average of these two unique effect sizes was used
in the analysis of the overall relationship (i.e., PJ fit job satisfaction).
However, when specific effect sizes pertaining to the various moderators
were available, these, rather than the aggregate correlations, were used in
the moderator analyses.
299
Moderator analyses were conducted to test the theoretically derived

propositions articulated earlier, when there was a large enough k and N
to merit discussion. Given the small number of studies on PG and PS
fit with the same criteria, no moderator analyses were possible for these
types of fit. A moderator would be indicated when two conditions are
met. First, there would be a large difference in the effect sizes between
the compared groups of studies. Second, the average variance in effect
sizes within each of these groups should decrease (Hunter & Schmidt,
2004). The 80% credibility intervals reported in each meta-analysis table
indicate the generalizability of the relationship across situations (Hunter
& Schmidt, 2004). If the credibility interval does not include zero, the
relationship is said to be generalizable. If the interval does not include
zero, yet there is still considerable variance unaccounted for, the direction of the relationship may still generalize (i.e., still be positive or negative across situations), but its strength may vary depending on additional
moderators.
Results
Tables 14 present the meta-analyses for the four types of fit, the criteria, and the moderator analyses. The first column indicates the fitcriterion
relationship examined, and any relevant subsamples due to moderators.
The second and third columns provide the number of effect sizes (k) and
total sample size (N), respectively, included in the meta-analytic estimate.
In the fourth column, the sample size weighted mean observed correlation
is presented. The lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of the observed correlations are shown in the fifth and sixth columns,
respectively. The seventh column contains the estimated true score correlation (), followed by the standard deviation of this estimate in the eighth
column (SD ). The lower and upper bound of the 80% credibility interval are presented in the ninth and tenth columns, respectively. Finally, the
percentage of variance accounted for by the artifacts is contained in the
last column. Table 5 reports the meta-analytic results of the interrelationships between types of fit, as well as moderator analyses for direct versus
indirect measures.
PersonJob Fit
As shown in Table 1, the first set of meta-analyses includes the correlations between PJ fit and outcomes. PJ fit has strong correlations with
the three primary attitudes studied in the fit literature: .56 with job satisfaction, .47 with organizational commitment, and .46 with intent to
quit. PJ fit has a moderate relationship with the attitudes of coworker
Job satisfaction
Complementary: DA
Complementary: NS
Combined [DA & NS]
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Subjective
Objective
Single job
Multiple jobs
Same time
Different times
Organizational commitment
Complementary: DA
Complementary: NS
Combined [DA & NS]
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Subjective
Objective
Single job
Multiple jobs
Same time
Different times
47
12
32
6
23
24
18
6
10
37
36
10
18
4
9
5
11
8
3
5
7
11
10
8
12,960
3,735
8,726
1,036
7,205
4,908
4,377
531
2,546
10,414
9,704
2,742
4,073
873
1,833
861
2,154
2,011
216
1,795
1,987
2,086
2,438
1,635
.44
.32
.48
.49
.45
.44
.46
.22
.47
.43
.44
.45
.39
.25
.31
.42
.36
.40
.17
.43
.43
.35
.44
.31
Avg r
.20
.14
.19
.20
.23
.13
.19
.05
.20
.19
.19
.20
.10
.01
.06
.05
.03
.13
.01
.19
.19
.02
.19
.02
Lower
.68
.50
.77
.78
.67
.75
.73
.49
.74
.67
.69
.70
.68
.49
.56
.79
.69
.67
.33
.67
.67
.68
.69
.60
Upper
95% CI
.56
.41
.61
.62
.58
.56
.59
.28
.59
.55
.56
.57
.47
.31
.37
.51
.44
.50
.21
.53
.53
.43
.54
.38
TABLE 1
Meta-Analysis Results of PersonJob Fit
SD
.138
.085
.172
.159
.112
.186
.163
.118
.154
.132
.141
.142
.170
.120
.139
.215
.187
.156
0
.132
.134
.186
.140
.167
.38
.30
.39
.41
.43
.32
.38
.13
.39
.38
.38
.39
.26
.15
.20
.24
.21
.30
.21
.36
.36
.19
.36
.17
Lower
.73
.52
.83
.82
.72
.79
.80
.43
.79
.72
.74
.76
.69
.46
.55
.79
.68
.69
.21
.70
.70
.66
.72
.59
Upper
80% CV
22.21
40.87
15.56
22.65
28.34
16.42
18.13
54.67
19.47
23.45
21.67
21.29
16.76
30.69
25.73
13.32
16.05
18.00
100.00
19.15
21.28
16.71
21.46
19.25
% var explained
300
DA = demandsabilities fit.
NS = needssupplies fit.
Intent to quit
Complementary: DA
Complementary: NS
Combined [DA & NS]
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Subjective
Objective
Single job
Multiple jobs
Same time
Different times
Coworker satisfaction
Supervisor satisfaction
Organizational identification
Overall performance
Complementary: DA
Complementary: NS
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Subjective
Objective
Single Job
Multiple Jobs
Strain
Complementary: DA
Complementary: NS
Tenure
Turnover
Organizational attraction
Intent to hire
16
6
8
5
11
6
3
3
4
12
7
8
6
4
8
19
8
8
3
16
10
6
8
15
10
4
6
5
8
4
4
3,849
982
2,816
783
2,065
1,866
267
1,599
1,770
2,059
2,387
1,131
2,280
1,987
1,619
1,938
547
1,558
552
1,386
295
1,091
801
1,441
3,505
2,025
1,642
1,484
1,496
8,131
1,132
.37
.18
.40
.46
.40
.33
.15
.36
.35
.39
.38
.38
.25
.28
.29
.16
.10
.16
.18
.16
.13
.17
.08
.22
.23
.25
.25
.16
.07
.40
.59
.59
.42
.64
.75
.65
.57
.50
.52
.51
.64
.50
.73
.13
.12
.11
.19
.33
.00
.25
.17
.48
.01
.17
.11
.39
.43
.43
.08
.25
.09
.30
.15
.06
.16
.17
.15
.09
.20
.20
.19
.14
.26
.03
.37
.44
.47
.51
.53
.32
.61
.49
.74
.35
.33
.55
.07
.07
.07
.40
.11
.71
.88
.46
.23
.50
.57
.49
.40
.18
.44
.43
.48
.47
.47
.32
.33
.36
.20
.12
.20
.22
.19
.16
.20
.10
.27
.28
.30
.31
.18
.08
.48
.67
.118
.107
.126
.167
.132
.134
.182
.076
.077
.140
.044
.195
.039
.078
.063
.186
.228
.041
.249
.153
.304
.064
.100
.172
.078
.091
.081
.115
.059
.183
.156
.61
.36
.66
.78
.66
.57
.41
.54
.53
.66
.52
.72
.27
.23
.28
.04
.17
.14
.10
.00
.23
.12
.03
.05
.38
.42
.41
.03
.16
.25
.47
.30
.09
.34
.35
.32
.23
.05
.34
.33
.30
.41
.22
.37
.43
.44
.44
.41
.25
.54
.39
.55
.29
.23
.49
.18
.19
.20
.32
.01
.72
.87
29.09
43.69
20.98
21.45
28.25
20.74
33.46
34.92
37.27
27.63
69.26
18.99
75.98
32.46
65.83
29.95
30.63
81.92
11.47
42.78
36.17
66.59
60.30
32.25
40.82
26.64
43.98
23.42
64.95
4.46
12.67

301
Job satisfaction
w/o Vancouver and Schmitt (1991)
Supplementary
Complementary: NS
Values
Personality
Goals
Multidimensional
Direct: Perceived
Indirect:
Subjective
Objective
Ratings of organization as E
Aggregate member profiles as E
Single organization
Multiple organization
Same time
Different times
k
65
64
41
40
30
45
5
3
10
30
39
38
24
19
18
13
6
5
28
37
36
49
48
11
N
42,922
29,534
33,767
20,379
9,284
23,211
548
14,367
3,524
19,534
24,339
10,951
8,187
16,706
3,318
1,780
14,750
1,362
9,446
34,106
20,718
39,012
25,624
3,084
.35
.40
.34
.41
.37
.41
.07
.24
.44
.45
.28
.32
.37
.23
.19
.17
.24
.24
.34
.36
.43
.36
.42
.31
Avg r
.08
.13
.07
.14
.06
.16
.01
.20
.19
.23
.04
.01
.04
.11
.05
.10
.18
.08
.01
.11
.19
.09
.15
.02
Lower
.62
.67
.61
.68
.68
.66
.13
.28
.69
.67
.52
.65
.70
.35
.43
.44
.30
.40
.67
.61
.67
.63
.69
.60
Upper
95% CI
.44
.50
.43
.52
.46
.51
.08
.31
.55
.56
.35
.40
.46
.29
.24
.22
.30
.30
.42
.44
.54
.45
.52
.39
TABLE 2
Meta-Analysis Results of PersonOrganization Fit
SD
.167
.168
.167
.169
.186
.157
0
0
.152
.124
.142
.197
.198
.056
.121
.132
0
.075
.198
.155
.135
.165
.159
.172
.23
.29
.22
.30
.22
.31
.08
.31
.35
.41
.17
.15
.21
.22
.08
.05
.30
.20
.17
.25
.36
.24
.32
.17
Lower
.65
.72
.64
.73
.70
.71
.08
.31
.74
.72
.53
.65
.71
.36
.39
.39
.30
.39
.67
.64
.71
.66
.73
.61
Upper
80% CV
9.42
11.84
8.27
11.18
12.38
12.62
100.00
100.00
16.35
17.70
12.12
11.65
10.50
39.33
34.69
38.32
100.00
49.43
10.45
9.05
15.66
8.74
12.23
15.31
% var explained
302
Supplementary
Complementary: NS
Values
Multidimensional
Direct: Perceived
Indirect:
Subjective
Objective
Ratings of organization as E
Aggregate member profiles as E
Single organization
Same time
Different times
Intent to quit
Supplementary
Complementary: NS
Values
Multidimensional
Direct: Perceived
44
43
27
26
22
28
10
20
26
25
16
12
11
8
5
4
20
24
23
30
29
14
43
42
29
28
23
32
10
24
36,093
22,705
30,357
16,969
6,402
18,589
2,581
15,275
20,965
7,577
5,886
15,316
1,928
806
14,573
1,185
5,886
30,207
16,819
32,426
19,038
3,710
34,276
20,888
28,846
15,458
6,802
18,222
2,606
15,400
.42
.54
.44
.61
.32
.56
.49
.64
.27
.33
.37
.23
.19
.13
.23
.20
.52
.40
.54
.42
.56
.36
.29
.38
.29
.42
.28
.38
.39
.43
.01
.13
.01
.28
.03
.19
.08
.35
.07
.06
.12
.15
.05
.05
.13
.15
.11
.03
.15
.01
.19
.09
.56
.60
.58
.64
.52
.60
.70
.61
.85
.95
.89
.94
.61
.93
.90
.93
.47
.60
.62
.31
.43
.31
.33
.55
.93
.83
.93
.85
.93
.81
.02
.16
.00
.20
.04
.16
.08
.25
.51
.65
.53
.74
.39
.68
.59
.77
.32
.40
.44
.27
.23
.16
.28
.24
.63
.49
.66
.51
.68
.43
.35
.47
.36
.51
.34
.46
.48
.52
.260
.239
.270
.202
.161
.227
.248
.172
.109
.158
.143
.039
.115
0
.055
.204
.249
.255
.236
.259
.223
.268
.167
.128
.182
.122
.128
.126
.185
.094
.18
.34
.19
.48
.19
.39
.27
.55
.18
.19
.26
.22
.08
.16
.21
.02
.31
.16
.35
.18
.39
.09
.57
.64
.59
.66
.50
.62
.72
.64
.85
.95
.88
.99
.60
.98
.91
.99
.46
.60
.62
.32
.38
.16
.35
.50
.95
.82
.96
.85
.97
.77
.14
.31
.12
.35
.18
.30
.24
.40
3.55
6.30
2.99
8.03
15.49
6.04
7.47
10.89
14.72
15.77
16.15
47.20
37.43
100.00
21.22
10.35
6.86
2.95
5.28
3.18
6.26
6.62
7.24
17.93
5.35
17.46
22.55
15.84
13.19
24.58

303
Indirect:
Subjective
Objective
Single organization
Same Time
Different times
Organizational satisfaction
Coworker satisfaction
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Trust in manager
Overall performance
Direct: Perceived
Indirect:
All common rater (ACR)
Partially common rater (PCR)
No common rater (NCR)
Task performance
Direct: Perceived
Indirect:
TABLE 2 (continued)
23
22
15
11
10
20
24
23
36
35
7
4
10
5
7
9
5
4
5
22
7
15
4
9
9
17
5
12
N
19,497
6,109
5,036
14,835
1,447
4,564
29,860
16,472
32,729
19,341
1,547
997
2,509
2,063
696
2,446
1,988
458
1,010
5,827
2,386
3,441
1,274
3,700
853
2,860
1,108
1,660
Lower
.34
.47
.48
.25
.49
.69
.55
.58
.56
.60
.64
.23
.09
.18
.03
.04
.12
.10
.26
.24
.10
.31
.02
.25
.16
.11
.02
.14
Avg r
.18
.25
.26
.15
.18
.38
.28
.38
.29
.38
.39
.52
.31
.34
.15
.28
.32
.12
.36
.05
.10
.02
.18
.01
.15
.11
.18
.04
.02
.03
.04
.05
.13
.07
.01
.18
.02
.16
.14
.81
.53
.50
.33
.52
.52
.14
.46
.34
.30
.35
.34
.23
.46
.33
.34
.22
Upper
95% CI
.22
.31
.32
.19
.23
.46
.34
.46
.35
.46
.47
.65
.39
.43
.19
.33
.38
.14
.43
.07
.12
.03
.22
.02
.18
.13
.22
.05
SD
.084
.120
.112
.050
.167
.185
.159
.114
.167
.127
.133
.168
.111
.069
0
.121
.100
0
0
.162
.095
.186
.071
.145
.025
.100
.061
.022
.33
.46
.46
.25
.44
.70
.54
.61
.56
.62
.64
.44
.25
.35
.19
.18
.25
.14
.43
.14
.00
.21
.13
.20
.02
.01
.14
.02
Lower
.11
.15
.18
.12
.01
.23
.13
.31
.13
.30
.30
.87
.53
.52
.19
.49
.51
.14
.43
.27
.24
.26
.31
.17
.38
.26
.30
.07
Upper
80% CV
20.77
27.15
25.62
32.66
26.64
14.48
5.85
16.67
6.66
15.92
25.15
18.46
35.83
51.50
100.00
24.67
25.56
100.00
100.00
17.52
32.13
15.78
47.91
14.50
38.40
45.87
63.23
95.42
% var explained
304

Contextual performance
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Tenure
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Subjective
Objective
Turnover
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Withdrawal (Absenteeism)
Strain
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Organizational attraction
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Job acceptance
Intent to hire
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
Job offer
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
3
8
9
13
9
5
5
6
3
28
10
22
11
12
10
5
5
7
8
6
2
11
10
4
4
9
8
3
8
6
6
389
1,577
1,078
2,122
1,210
994
746
830
629
6,036
2,283
4,484
2,882
1,744
2,157
1,153
1,004
1,370
3,605
2,184
1,421
9,001
8,797
7,525
1,829
2,518
2,402
562
1,556
1,178
918
.15
.12
.03
.21
.26
.16
.36
.21
.04
.02
.02
.02
.01
.05
.13
.15
.11
.05
.22
.28
.14
.38
.52
.18
.22
.53
.61
.16
.29
.45
.03
.09
.06
.15
.04
.16
.19
.20
.15
.02
.18
.14
.22
.23
.17
.38
.35
.42
.23
.47
.55
.20
.18
.42
.16
.04
.31
.34
.13
.14
.16
.19
.39
.30
.21
.46
.36
.51
.52
.27
.06
.22
.18
.26
.25
.27
.12
.05
.20
.13
.03
.01
.08
.58
.62
.20
.40
.75
.88
.45
.72
.74
.25
.18
.14
.04
.27
.32
.20
.45
.27
.06
.03
.03
.02
.01
.06
.14
.16
.12
.05
.27
.34
.17
.46
.62
.22
.24
.61
.70
.18
.32
.50
.03
.106
.069
.027
.135
0
.207
0
0
0
.082
.046
.101
.108
.080
.123
.076
.158
.060
.145
.154
0
.104
.041
0
.089
.116
.146
.153
.235
.147
.075
.04
.06
.00
.09
.32
.06
.45
.27
.06
.08
.03
.11
.13
.05
.30
.26
.33
.13
.46
.54
.17
.33
.57
.22
.13
.47
.52
.02
.02
.31
.06
.31
.23
.07
.44
.32
.46
.45
.27
.06
.13
.08
.15
.150
.16
.01
.06
.08
.02
.08
.14
.17
.59
.67
.22
.36
.76
.89
.38
.63
.69
.13
48.96
60.30
94.26
33.42
100.00
15.20
100.00
100.00
100.00
45.75
71.28
36.84
28.42
55.91
26.82
47.15
19.30
63.57
13.27
14.10
100.00
17.32
61.95
100.00
24.91
23.89
16.01
22.58
9.16
18.29
58.33

305
306
TABLE 3
Meta-Analysis Results of PersonGroup Fit
95% CI
k
Avg r Lower Upper
Job satisfaction 9 1822

.24
Organizational 12 2306
.15
commitment
Intent to quit
6 943 .17
Coworker
5 1210
.32
satisfaction
Supervisor
4 1545
.23
satisfaction
Overall
9 1946
.15
performance
Contextual
4 1015
.18
performance
Political
5 979 .13
perceptions
Tenure
10 1429
.05
Group
4 889
.22
cohesion
80% CV
% var
SD Lower Upper explained
.12
.05
.36
.35
.31 0
.19 .084
.31
.08
.31
.30
100.00
52.28
.33
.16
.01
.48
.22 .028
.42 .057
.25
.34
.18
.49
92.31
70.16
.05
.41
.28 .091
.16
.39
31.28
.03
.27
.19
.19
.19
100.00
.00
.36
.23 .089
.12
.35
44.72
.23
.03
.17
.17
100.00
.13
.03
.23
.47
.02
.09
.10
.45
89.85
24.60
.17
.06 .032
.27 .140
satisfaction (.32), supervisor satisfaction (.33), and organizational identification (.36). It has a modest correlation with overall performance (.20)
and is correlated somewhat more strongly (.28) with indicators of strain.
Among the criteria of organizational longevity, tenure, and turnover, PJ
fit had correlations of .18 and .08, respectively. In the preentry context, PJ fit had strong correlations of .48 with organizational attraction
and .67 with an organizations intent to hire. Almost all of the 80%
credibility intervals for PJ fit did not include zero, with the exception
of PJ fit and overall job performance (80% CV: .04 .44). Therefore, the generalizability of this relationship is less definite than the
others.
Based on the number of studies of each criterion available for moderator analysis, four moderators could be reliably examined. The first was
the conceptualization of fit. Only five studies included a supplementary
conceptualization of PJ fit, and no more than three of these addressed
the same criterion. Therefore, a reliable comparison of supplementary
and complementary conceptualizations could not be conducted for PJ fit.
Within the complementary category, however, separating the studies by
demandsabilities, needssupplies, or a combination of the two conceptualizations explained more of the variance in the correlations in four
of the five cases where there were enough studies to perform moderator
Job satisfaction
Perceptions of politics
Leadermember exchange
Tenure
Overall Performance
Direct: Perceived
Indirect
5
7
5
5
3
6
14
8
7
1,199
1,346
853
918
628
1,191
3,461
1,179
2,307
.35
.07
.09
.39
.37
.08
.15
.25
.09
Avg r
.11
.15
.21
.02
.19
.10
.12
.01
.09
Lower
.59
.29
.03
.80
.55
.26
.42
.49
.27
Upper
95% CI
.44
.09
.12
.46
.43
.09
.18
.31
.11
.112
.100
0
.228
.076
.062
.153
.114
.094
SD
TABLE 4
Meta-Analysis Results of PersonSupervisor Fit
.30
.04
.12
.17
.34
.01
.01
.16
.01
Lower
.59
.21
.12
.75
.53
.17
.38
.45
.23
Upper
80% CV
30.06
42.54
100.00
9.94
47.35
60.43
19.89
41.36
33.12
% var explained

307
DA = DemandsAbilities fit.
NS = NeedsSkills fit.
POPJ
Direct: Perceived
PJ: Complementary: DA
PJ: Complementary: NS
Indirect: Objective
POPG
Direct: Perceived
Indirect: Objective
POPS
PJPG
PGPS
16
14
7
6
4
8
5
5
4
3
3
N
10,239
9,997
1,303
2,282
440
1,607
1,321
512
976
775
713
.58
.59
.37
.59
.19
.43
.39
.48
.38
.38
.30
Avg r
.38
.43
.02
.47
.12
.10
.25
.13
.03
.14
.06
Lower
.78
.75
.72
.71
.50
.76
.53
1.00
.73
.62
.54
Upper
95% CI
.72
.74
.45
.73
.24
.54
.48
.60
.46
.49
.37
.106
.071
.200
.025
.154
.198
.050
.371
.206
.133
.132
SD
.58
.65
.20
.70
.04
.28
.42
.12
.20
.32
.20
.85
.83
.71
.76
.43
.79
.55
1.00
.72
.66
.54
Upper
80% CV
Lower
TABLE 5
Meta-Analysis Results of the Interrelationships Between Types of Fit
30.05
49.53
16.08
89.87
35.70
16.07
70.93
8.02
11.36
26.55
26.01
% var explained
308
309
analyses.3 It should be noted that for PJ fit, conceptualization (demands

abilities vs. needssupplies) and content dimensions (KSAs vs. needs) are
virtually identical. Therefore, the analyses are relevant to both types of
moderators.
Conceptualization of fit (or content dimension) acted as a moderator for job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to quit, and
overall performance but not for indicators of strain. As expected, the combined measure of PJ fit had a stronger correlation with attitudinal criteria,
followed by needssupplies fit, and then demandsabilities fit. The differences in the relationships for each were job satisfaction (combined:
.62; needssupplies: .61, demandsabilities: .41), organizational commitment (.51, .37, .31), and intent to quit (.57, .50, .23). For overall
performance only needssupplies and demandsabilities conceptualizations could be compared, with the former being the stronger predictor
(.20, .12). Although this does not support our prediction that demands
abilities fit would have a greater impact on performance, the effect sizes
are more similar than for the attitudinal criteria. In contrast to the results before the moderator analysis, the 80% credibility interval for the PJ
needssuppliesoverall performance relationship did not include zero,
supporting the generalizability of this particular relationship.
The second moderator examined was measurement strategydirect
measures of perceived fit, indirect measures of subjective and objective
fit. Due to sample size constraints, the moderator analysis was conducted
only for the criteria of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent
to quit, and overall performance. Like fit conceptualization, this analysis
explained more of the variance among the PJ fit correlations. We expected
that the effects would be largest for direct measures of perceived fit, followed by indirect measures of subjective fit, and then objective fit. This
prediction was supported for intent to quit (perceived: .49, subjective:
.44, objective: .18) and overall performance (.22; .20; .16). Although
the small difference in effect sizes across these measurement strategies
for the performance criterion is notable, partial support for our prediction
was found for job satisfaction, in which direct perceived (.58) and indirect
subjective (.59) effects were virtually identical, with indirect objective fit a
distant third (.28), and for organizational commitment in which objective
fit was lowest (.21), but subjective fit (.53) was greater than perceived fit
(.44).
3
Because studies using a demandsabilities conceptualization of fit used KSAs as the
exclusive content dimension, and those investigating needssupplies conceptualizations
used predominantly needs, we did not conduct a separate moderator analysis for content
dimensions.
310
The third moderator we examined was whether the sample contained

only one type of job (single-unit) or multiple jobs (multi-unit). We did not
make a prediction about the direction of this moderator, and the results
were mixed. The single-job studies produced higher correlations for job
satisfaction (single: .59, multiple: .55) and organizational commitment
(single: .53, multiple: .43); whereas the multiple-job studies had larger
effect sizes for intent to quit (single: .43, multiple: .48) and overall
performance (single: .10, multiple: .27).
Fourth, to examine the impact of common method bias on fitattitude
relationships, we examined whether timing of the predictor and criterion
measures as concurrent versus temporally separate moderated effect sizes.
We expected that the effect sizes would be greater when fit and attitudes
were measured at the same point in time, versus when the measures were
temporally separated. However, for both job satisfaction (same time: .56,
different times: .57) and intent to quit (same time: .47, different times:
.47), we found little to no difference in the corrected correlations. Only
for organizational commitment did the timing of the measures act as expected (same time: .54, different times: .38).
Studies examining the PJ fit using a polynomial regression analysis
produced effect sizes generally in the range of the meta-analytic estimates in Table 1. However, visual inspection of the surface plots often revealed more complicated relationships (Edwards, 1993, 1994; Edwards &
Harrison, 1993; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999; Livingston, Nelson, & Barr,
1997; Shaw & Gupta, 2004). Rather, they suggest that fit at high levels of
P and E is generally better than fit at low levels and that main effects of
E often outweigh those of P, making inadequate supplies (P > E) more
detrimental than excess supplies (P < E) for attitudes.
PersonOrganization Fit
Table 2 presents the correlations from the meta-analyses of PO fit

and outcomes. PO fit had strong correlations with job satisfaction (.44)
and organizational commitment (.51), and more moderate for intent to
quit (.35). Although the sample sizes for these analyses were large
(N = 42,922 for job satisfaction, N = 36,093 for organizational commitment, N = 34,276 for intent to quit), one study may have overly influenced these results. To investigate the impact of Vancouver and Schmitt4
(1991; n = 13,388), analyses were conducted both with and without this
study. Without Vancouver and Schmitt (1991), the relationships between
4
Because Vancouver, Millsap, and Peters (1994) used the same data set as Vancouver
and Schmitt (1991), we only included the earlier study in our analysis.
311
PO fit and all three criteria increased (job satisfaction, .50; organizational
commitment, .65; intent to quit, .47).
The relationships between PO fit and most other attitudes were moderate: .39 with coworker satisfaction, .33 with supervisor satisfaction, .43
with the employees trust in their managers. The correlation with organizational satisfaction was substantially higher, .65. With measures of
performance, PO fit had low correlations with overall job performance
(.07) and task performance (.13), but moderate correlations with contextual performance (.27). PO fit also had weak relationships with tenure
(.03), turnover (.14), and organizational withdrawal (.05), but more
moderate relationships with indicators of strain (.27). With preentry criteria, PO fit had a correlation of .46 with organizational attraction, .24 with
applicant job acceptance, .61 with intent to hire, and .32 with job offers.
Most of the 80% credibility intervals for PO fit did not include zero, with
the exceptions of overall performance, tenure, and withdrawal.
To test for moderators, we first examined the conceptualization of
fit (supplementary vs. complementary needssupplies). Only Hutcheson
(1999) examined the demandsabilities PO fit, so that category was not
included in the moderator analyses. In contrast to our prediction that
needssupplies fit effects would be stronger than supplementary fit, the
correlations with organizational commitment for supplementary fit were
higher, .53 (.74 without Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991) than needssupplies
fit (.39), as was the case with intent to quit, .36 (.51); .34. For
job satisfaction supplementary fit was correlated slightly lower (.43) than
needssupplies fit (.46); however, this pattern reversed when Vancouver
and Schmitt (1991) was excluded (supplementary: .52).
The second moderator examined was the content dimensions on which
fit was assessed. The majority of the studies examined values exclusively
or used a combined measure that included multiple content dimensions.
As predicted, multidimensional measures had stronger relationships than
values-only measures with job satisfaction (multidimensional: .55, values:
.51), and intent to quit (multidimension: .48, values: .46), although
these differences were small. Alternatively, for organization commitment,
values-based fit yielded a stronger relationship than multidimensional
measures (.68 and .59). Only for job satisfaction were we able to reliably compare these effects with personality-based and goal-based PO fit.
Consistent with our prediction, goal-based PO fit had a weaker effect (.31)
than value-based fit (.51) but stronger than personality-based fit (.08).
The third moderator examined was measurement strategy. Results were
generally consistent with our prediction that direct measures of perceived
fit would have the strongest relationship with criteria, followed by indirect subjective, and then indirect objective measures: job satisfaction
(direct perceived, .56; indirect subjective, .46; indirect objective: .29),
312
organizational commitment (.77, .44, .27), and intent to quit (.52, .32,
.19). Only for the tenure criterion did the direction of the effects differ
(.03, .01, .06). For all other criteria it was only possible to compare direct
perceived measures with studies using indirect measures (i.e., both subjective and objective fit studies are included). In each of these cases, direct
measures had stronger effects than did indirect measures: coworker satisfaction (direct perceived: .43, indirect: .19), supervisor satisfaction (.38,
.14), overall performance (.12, .03), task performance (.22, .05), contextual
performance (.32, .20), turnover (.16, .12), and strain (.34, .17).
Differences in the effect sizes were particularly large in the preentry context: organizational attraction (.62, .22), intent to hire (.70, .18), and job
offer (.50, .03). Excluding Vancouver and Schmitt (1991) did not change
the measurement strategy moderator results substantially.
The fourth moderator analysis examined whether it made a difference
if the objective environment was measured as the aggregate of employees
personal characteristics or their perceptions of the organizational culture
or climate. Due to sample size limitations, this analysis could only be
conducted for job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In contrast
to our prediction, for both criteria the effect size was slightly larger when
the environment was an aggregation of personal characteristics (job satisfaction: .30, organizational commitment: .28) than when their aggregate
of ratings of the organization were used (.22, .16). These results remained
mostly stable when Vancouver and Schmitt (1991) was excluded.
The fifth moderator analysis focused on whether the sampling strategy
created differences in the size of the relationships. We made no predictions
about the direction of this moderator. For two of the three analyses, the
effect sizes for the single organization studies were higher than the multiple organization studies: organizational commitment (single organization:
.63, multiple organizations: .49) and intent to quit (.46, .34). For the
criterion of job satisfaction the effect sizes were comparable for single
(.42) and multiorganization studies (.44). However, when Vancouver and
Schmitt (1991) was excluded, the effect sizes for single and multiple organization studies became virtually identical.
We examined the PO fit data in two ways to determine if common
method bias was influencing effect sizes. First, we assessed whether the
timing (concurrent vs. separate) of predictor and criterion measures acted
as a moderator for the attitudes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to quit. For job satisfaction (same time: .45, different times: .39) and organizational commitment (same time: .51, different
times: .43), the expected smaller effect size for measures taken at different
points in time was obtained. However, this did not hold for intent to quit
(same time: .35, different times: .47). Without Vancouver and Schmitt
the effects were comparable (same time w/o Vancouver & Schmitt: .46).
Second, for the performance criteria, we examined whether common rater
313
bias influenced the reported effect sizes.5 We predicted that the effects
would be largest when fit and performance were reported by a common
rater (ACR), followed by partially common raters (PCR), and then by no
common raters (NCR). Effects were consistent with this prediction for
task (ACR: .18, PCR: .14, NCR: .04) and contextual (ACR: .45, PCR:
.27, NCR: .06) performance. However, for overall performance the magnitude of the last two relationships was reversed (ACR: .22, PCR: .02,
NCR: .18).
Studies of PO fit using polynomial regression generally produced
larger effect sizes than the meta-analytic estimates for other types of measures (e.g., Cable & Edwards, 2004; Finegan, 2000; Kalliath, Bluedorn,
& Strube, 1999; Lutrick, 2003; Van Vianen, 2000). However, examining
the surface graphs in these studies suggested relationships that generally
diverged from traditional notions of symmetrical fit. Instead, these studies
demonstrate that attitudes are most positive when both P and E are high
versus when they are both low. In addition, most suggest nonsymmetrical
effects of misfit, such that excess E conditions have little negative impact
on attitudes, whereas excess P conditions accompany dramatic decreases
in attitudes.
PersonGroup Fit
The third set of meta-analyses provides estimates of the relationship

between PG fit and the criteria. As can been seen in Table 3, PG fit has a
moderate true score correlation with the three most commonly studied criteria, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to quit. The
true score correlations with those criteria are .31, .19, and .22, respectively. For the two most commonly assessed subfacets of job satisfaction,
PG fit correlates .42 with coworker satisfaction and .28 with supervisor
satisfaction. PG fit also has a strong relationship (.47) with group cohesion.
The correlation with overall performance is .19, whereas the correlation
with contextual performance is slightly higher at .23. PG fit has a moderate
negative relationship with how employees view the political environment
of their organization (.17). The correlation with tenure is the weakest of
all of the criteria, at .06.
For PG fit, none of the 80% credibility intervals include zero, indicating the broad generalizability of PG fit across situations. Although the
5
We did not conduct the common rater analysis for the attitudinal criteria because the
results would be isomorphic with the comparison between perceived and subjective fit
(both ACR with attitudes as the criteria) and objective fit (PCR), which have already been
discussed. All studies examining objective criteria (turnover, tenure, job offer, withdrawal,
and job acceptance) were also excluded, because the results would be identical to the
comparison of subjective fit (PCR) with objective criteria with perceived and objective fit
(NCR).
314
theoretical justifications for moderators discussed previously would apply

to PG fit studies, because of the small number of studies in this category
a reliable moderator analysis was not possible.
Only a small number of studies have used a polynomial regression approach to examine PG fit (e.g., Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001; Slocombe
& Bluedorn, 1999; Strauss et al., 2001). As with other polynomial regression studies, the multiple correlations are generally larger than for other
types of fit measures. When these relationships are graphed, the results
present mixed support for fit relationships. Symmetrical, supplementary
fit relationships were supported for performance goals (Kristof-Brown &
Stevens, 2001), polychronicity (Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999) and hurriedness (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, in press), and a symmetrical, complementary fit relationship for extraversion and attraction to team members
(Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Stevens, in press). However, in most of these
studies there were also results demonstrating that excesses of E are generally not as detrimental as excesses of P and that fit at high levels (i.e.,
high P and high E) is generally better than fit at low levels (i.e., low P and
low E).
PersonSupervisor Fit
The meta-analysis results for PS fit are presented in Table 4. All of

the 80% credibility intervals did not include zero with the exceptions of
organizational commitment and overall performance. PS fit had a stronger
relationship with job satisfaction (.44) than organizational commitment
(.09). The relationship with political perceptions was .12. The relationships with supervisor-focused criteria were strong, with a correlation of
.46 with supervisor satisfaction and .43 with LMX. PS fit had a correlation
of .09 with tenure and .18 with overall performance. However, the relationship with overall performance was moderated by the conceptualization of
fit. Consistent with the predictions, the direct measures of perceived PS
fit had a stronger relationship with performance (.31) than did indirect
measures of subjective and objective fit (.11).
Only a handful of studies have taken a polynomial regression approach
to PS fit (Antonioni & Park, 2001; Smith, 2002; Van Vianen, 2000). These
studies generally show little support for supplementary fit on personality
or values being related to employee attitudes or contextual performance,
and the effects differ dramatically for various personality traits.
Comparing Types of Fit
Consistent with our predictions, attitudes referencing particular aspects

of the environment were most strongly associated with corresponding
types of fit. Job satisfaction was more strongly related to PJ fit (.56) than
315
to PO (.44), PG (.31), or PS fit (.44). Organizational commitment was most

strongly related to PO fit (.51), followed closely by PJ fit (.47), and then
weakly related to PG fit (.19) and PS fit (.09). Alternatively, satisfaction
with coworkers was highest for PG fit (.42) compared to PJ (.32) and PO fit
(.39), and satisfaction with supervisor was highest for PS fit (.46) compared
to PJ (.33), PO (.33), and PG fit (.28). Also consistent with expectations,
organizational attraction was influenced comparably by PJ fit (.48) and
PO fit (.46), and intent to hire was somewhat more strongly related to PJ
fit (.67) than PO fit (.61). In contrast to our predictions, intent to quit,
tenure, and turnover were differentially influenced by various types of fit:
intent to quit (PJ: .46, PO: .35, PG: .22) tenure (PJ: .18, PO: .03, PG:
.06, PS: .09) turnover (PJ: .08, PO: .14). Relationships with overall
performance were comparable for PJ (.20), PG (.19), and PS fit (.18);
the relationship with PO fit was substantially smaller (.07). Contextual
performance had comparable relationships with PO (.27) and PG fit (.23);
reliable estimates for PJ and PS fit could not be determined because of
sample-size constraints.
Table 5 reports the meta-analysis results for the comparisons between
types of fit. All of the 80% credibility intervals did not include zero,
indicating that the types of fit are positively related across settings. In
the overall meta-analyses, the low percentage of variance accounted for
by artifacts suggests that moderator effects are likely present. Contrary
to our expectation, the strongest relationship was between PJ and PO fit
(.72), followed by PO and PG (.54) fit, and then PJ and PG fit (.49). The
weakest relationships were with PS fit, having a corrected correlation of
.46 with PO fit and .37 with PG fit. As expected, however, differentiating
the PJ studies into needssupplies or demandsabilities conceptualizations
showed a weaker relationship between PO fit and demandsabilities PJ fit
(.45) than with needssupplies PJ fit (.73). Measurement strategy served
as a moderator for all conditions in which it could be reliably examined.
Direct measures of POPJ relationships reported a substantially stronger
correlation (.74) versus indirect objective measures (.24); however, for PO
and PG fit, the effect was in the opposite direction (direct: .48, indirect
objective: .60).
Discussion
Of all the issues in psychology that have fascinated scholars and practitioners alike, none has been more pervasive than the one concerning the
fit of person and environment (Schneider, 2001, p. 141). The basic demarcation between PJ, PG, PO, and PS fit provides a meaningful way of
assessing how fit with various aspects of the work environment influences
individuals attitudes and behaviors. The four types of fit were only moderately related to each other, and even less so when assessed with indirect
316
measures. These results underscore the uniqueness of each type of fit and
the ability of individuals to discern among aspects of their work environment when assessing fit. In particular, the relationships between PS fit and
the other types were small, suggesting that employees do not view superiors as isomorphic representations of the organization. It is worth noting
also that in studies that assessed multiple types of fit, most report a unique
prediction attributable to each type of fit (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al., 2002;
OReilly et al., 1991). Taken together, these results suggest that overall
PE fit is a multidimensional concept consisting of multiple subtypes of fit
(Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998).
It is clear from these results that fit matters. Even during relatively
brief preentry encounters, attitudes and decisions are strongly influenced
by various types of fit. As anticipated, attitudes about various aspects of
the environment were most strongly related to the corresponding type of
fit. Job satisfaction was most strongly influenced by PJ fit, organizational
commitment by PO fit, satisfaction with coworkers by PG fit, and satisfaction with supervisor with PS fit. These results provides additional support
for the capability of individuals to, at least partially, compartmentalize
their reactions to various aspects of their work environment.
Although we anticipated some compartmentalization, the weak results
for PG fit on the more general attitudes of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intent to quit surprised us. Emerging theories that emphasize fit and composition effects for groups (e.g., Arrow, McGrath, &
Berdahl, 2000; Beersma et al., 2003) would suggest that PG fit should be
more influential. One potential explanation for the weak findings is the
heavy reliance on objective, personality-based measures of PG fit. The
current paucity of PG fit studies does not allow us to explore moderators; however, the results from PO fit studies suggest that these types of
measures represent the weakest types of fit effects. Researchers of PG fit
must also grapple with the difficult question of how to best assess group
psychological characteristics. Studies suggesting that the simple average
of a group is not the best indicator of its properties (e.g., Barrick, Stewart,
Neubert, & Mount, 1998) raise questions about how best to assess the
values or personality of a group. Recent work focused on assessing traditionally individual-level constructs, such as personality, across levels
of analysis appears promising (e.g., Hofmann & Jones, 2003; Morgeson
& Hofmann, 1999). These issues become particularly problematic when
faultlines (Lau & Murnighan, 1998) sharply divide members. Shaw (2004)
provides some direction for assessing faultlines in groups, but the implications for studies of fit are not yet clear.
In both preentry and postentry contexts stronger relationships were reported for attitudinal criteria than for behaviors. This may be due, in part,
to common method bias inflating self-reported fitattitude relationships.
317
A second explanation is that there are considerable barriers to acting on

experiences of fit or misfit at work (Griffeth et al., 2001; Mitchell et al.,
2001). The consequences of withdrawing from work, performing poorly,
or leaving the organization can be severe, making it likely that attitudes
will be influenced by fit well before behaviors are changed. Despite these
barriers, these results provide evidence that various types of fit do influence behavioral outcomes including performance and turnover. Overall
performance was only weakly associated with PO fit but more strongly
with the other three types of fit. This is understandable for PJ fit because
of the emphasis on job proficiency; however, the association with PG
and PS fit was unexpected. This may reflect the growing importance of
teams as the fundamental work unit in organizations (Lawler, Mohrman, &
Ledford, 1995) and the impact of supervisors input on overall performance assessments. PG fit also emerges as a relevant predictor of contextual performance, as does PO fit. As organizations continue to ask
employees to do more with less, using PG and PO fit to hire and retain
individuals who contribute beyond job requirements may provide a competitive advantage.
The results for tenure and turnover seem to tell conflicting stories. PJ
fit had the strongest association with tenure, and even that was a modest
relationship. However, PO fit had a slightly stronger impact on turnover
than did PJ fit. One possible explanation for these results is the timing of
the measures and Schneiders (1987) ASA model. Tenure was measured
concurrently in all studies, whereas turnover was collected anywhere from
3 months to 2 years after the fit assessments. Although the ASA model
suggests that attraction and selection will help screen out people who do
not have a good PO fit, organizations are required to hire based on jobrelevant qualifications. This implies that the PJ fit of employees at any
given time should be high but that some people with low or modest PO fit
will likely be hired. If employees have poor PJ fit, they may try to develop
their skills, change jobs internally, or even be demoted. However, if they
have a poor PO fit, the ASA model implies that they will eventually leave
the company, making PO fit a better predictor of eventual turnover. In a
marketplace where human talent is becoming increasingly viewed as a key
competitive advantage (Reichheld, 1996), organizations may find PO fit a
useful tool for reducing turnover.
Moderators
For PJ and PO fit there were sufficient studies to examine several

potential moderators. One of these, conceptualization of fit, was found
to influence most fitoutcome relationships. In almost every case the
complementary form of needssupplies fit has the greatest impact on
318
individual attitudes and behavior. This was followed closely by supplementary fit. These results are consistent with recent research by Cable
and Edwards (2004), which demonstrates that psychological need fulfillment and value congruence play unique and relatively equal roles in
affecting work attitudes. Alternatively, demandsabilities fit had a substantially weaker effect on attitudes. It did, however, show relatively equal
effects on strain and performance as the other forms of fit. This contradicts
Muchinsky and Monahans (1987) notion that complementary demands
abilities fit is only relevant to organizational outcomes. Taken together,
these results reinforce the importance of considering multiple conceptualizations, as well as multiple types of fit, when predicting individual
outcomes at work.
Consistent with the results for fit conceptualization, the various content
dimensions on which fit can be assessed also proved to be important moderators. For both PJ and PO fit, studies that assessed fit across a variety
of content dimensions (e.g., values, personality, needs, KSAs) reported
stronger relationships with criteria. However, in the case of PO fit, valuesonly measures produced only slightly weaker effects. This finding lends
credence to Chatmans (1989) emphasis on values as the crux of person
culture fit. Goals also appear to hold some promise as measures of PO fit,
although their relationship with job satisfaction was less than values-based
measures. The results for job satisfaction also strongly call into question
the use of overall personality similarity as an indicator of PO fit. Although
there were not enough studies to conduct a reliable moderator analysis,
studies of PS fit based on personality similarity also reported lower-thanaverage effect sizes (e.g., Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002; Smith, 2002). As
previously articulated, this may reflect the notion that complementarity,
rather than similarity, may be desirable on some traits (e.g., Kristof-Brown
et al., in press; Smith, 2002). Future studies of personality-based fit are
advised to use measures that are capable of assessing various conceptualizations of fit at the trait level, rather than overall personality profiles.
Measurement strategy was found to be one of the most important
moderators of PJ and PO fit effects. In almost all cases, direct measures
generated stronger results than indirect measures. This is consistent with
Verquer et al.s (2003) finding that individuals overall assessment of fit is
the best predictor of outcomes. Although stronger effects may be found by
assessing perceived fit, this does not necessarily imply that direct measurement is optimal. Direct assessments of perceived fit are more susceptible
to a common method bias than other measures and shed little light on
the characteristics that underlie fit perceptions. It is worth noting that the
differences in direct and indirect measures of fit are greatest in the preentry context. The mean difference between direct and indirect measures of
PO fit in this context is .45. This suggests that although applicants and
319
recruiters are strongly influenced by perceptions of PO fit during recruitment and selection, these perceptions have little, if any, connection
with reality. Whether fit perceptions are generated based on organizationcontrolled recruitment materials (e.g., Cable et al., 2000; Dineen, working
paper; Dineen et al., 2002; Saks & Ashforth, 1997) or a short interview
(Cable & Judge, 1997; Higgins, 2000; Kristof-Brown, 2000), they are
based on very limited information. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that recruiters perceptions of applicant PO fit are more likely to
reflect the similar-to-me bias than true fit with the organizations culture
(Adkins et al., 1994; Howard & Ferris, 1996).
With regard to the common method bias, our comparisons consistently
demonstrated that studies using all common raters had higher effect sizes
than those using partially common raters. These, in turn, generally reported stronger effects than those with no common source reporting. In
addition, in studies of fitattitude relationships, there appears to be a modest bias created by measuring fit and the criteria at the same point in time.
Taken together, this evidence suggests that common-method bias is likely
augmenting most reported fit relationships. How influential this bias is,
however, we cannot definitively say because it is confounded with differences between perceived, subjective, and objective fit. These concepts
differ dramatically in terms of what environment is assessed, not just how
it is measured. A compelling question for fit researchers is whether using
common raters or concurrent measurement compromises the integrity of
the reported relationships, or whether it reflects the reality of how peoples attitudes are influenced by fit as they experience it. There is a strong
historical argument in interactional psychology that people can only be
influenced by fit with the environment as they perceive it (e.g., Caplan,
1987; Endler & Magnussen, 1976; French et al., 1982). Therefore, although using a common source may increase the relationship between fit
and outcomes, this may reflect reality rather than artifactual bias. There
is no simple answer to what approach is best. However, using indirect
subjective measures and collecting fit and criteria data at different points
in time should reduce the impact of artifactual biases, while still having
the benefit of assessing fit with the experienced environment.
Finally, the moderator results also shed some light on the role that
sampling plays in reported fitoutcome relationships. Despite some higher
effect sizes for single-unit studies of organizational commitment, effect
sizes were generally comparable with multi-unit studies (particularly when
Vancouver and Schmitt [1991] was excluded). These equivocal results may
reflect variability in culture strength across single-organization samples,
something that would also be captured in multi-unit samples. Alternatively, they may reflect the strongly personal nature of fit assessments,
which vary as widely within as between organizations. In either case, the
320
use of single-organization or job samples does not appear to have significantly reduced the strength of reported relationships. In contrast, how the
environment is assessed in studies of objective fit does appear to make a
difference. Specifically, the aggregation of employee characteristics produced stronger fit effects than treating the organization as a unique entity.
In virtually every case both types of measures were aggregates (i.e., the
composite of multiple-members ratings of the environment or of themselves). Therefore, these results cannot be attributed to the greater reliability of aggregated measures. It is more likely that they reflect the high degree of inaccuracy in peoples perceptions of organizational characteristics
(Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey, & Edwards, 2000) or, that they truly reflect
Schneiders proposition that the people make the place.
Although the credibility intervals around the effect size estimates suggested that most were generalizable, a separate discussion of Vancouver
and Schmitts (1991) results is warranted. Vancouver and Schmitt (1991)
examined the fit between the goals of secondary school teachers and their
schools goals, as reported by their principals and coworkers. Contributing
13,388 to the overall N, this study reported effect sizes substantially lower
than the overall mean effects. Therefore, when all analyses were run excluding this study, the average effects sizes increased .06.12. This is less
than the impact reported by Verquer et al. (2003), due in part to the larger
k and N in this study, but is still noteworthy. This may be attributable to
the smaller impact of goal-based fit versus values-based fit, or the use of
indirect objective measures. Another possibility is that the sample was in
some way unique. One other study examining secondary school teachers
(Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004) also presented lower-than-average effect sizes for PO fit, this time assessed using a value similarity index. A
final possibility is that because teachers were asked to report the importance of the same 14 goals for the school (Vancouver & Schmitt, p. 342),
rather than how important the goals were to them personally, the goal congruence index may reflect agreement more than fit. Continued research
exploring these alternative explanations is encouraged to better interpret
Vancouver and Schmitts results.
Future Research
While conducting this meta-analysis, we became aware of several

noticeable gaps in the fit literature. First, despite the acknowledgement
that multiple conceptualizations of fit exist, there has been surprisingly
little research focused on validating multidimensional approaches. The
three-dimensional model (PO value congruence, PJ needssupplies fit, PJ
demandsabilities fit) proposed by Cable and DeRue (2002) is a step toward this type of theory. However, by not incorporating PG or PS fit, as
321
well as other types of PO fit such as personality and goal similarity, their
model leaves room for expansion. Now that more is known about various
types of fit, perhaps it is time to revisit the fields earlier notion of an
overall assessment of PE fit, whether it be formative (i.e., composed by
various independent types of fit) or reflective (i.e., one overarching construct that influences perceptions of various types of fit; Diamantopoulos
& Winklhofer, 2001). To move in this direction, however, more attention
must be paid to underexplored areas of fit, including all forms of PG and
PS fit, as well as complementary forms of PO fit and supplementary forms
of PJ fit. Moreover, exploration of how various types of fit influence each
other over time and how fit is influenced by family issues (e.g., Edwards
& Rothbard, 1999) will be important for establishing a more complete
model of PE fit.
A second area requiring attention is fit as a dependent variable. Specifically, a better understanding of what it means to people to fit and the
mechanisms that stimulate fit are long overdue. Edwards (1993, 1994)
fundamentally altered fit research with the introduction of polynomial regression analysis as a more precise way to assess the impact of fit and
misfit. Results of these studies suggest that criteria are often predicted by
relationships that do not adhere to symmetrical notions of fit. Most suggest that fit at higher levels of a characteristic is generally superior to fit
at lower levels and that misfit effects are asymmetrical (e.g., Edwards &
Harrison, 1993; Livingstone et al., 1997; Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999).
It is interesting to note that some of the earliest theorizing on PE fit (e.g.,
Caplan, 1983; Kulka, 1979) suggested asymmetrical effects of misfit and
fit that are actually consistent with recent polynomial regression findings.
There is a clear need to revisit this research and explore the social comparison process underlying peoples perceptions of fit. Polynomial regression
studies that use perceived PE fit as the dependent variable are one viable
approach, as are qualitative explorations of individuals cognitive schemas
regarding fit.
Regarding mechanisms that facilitate fit, most authors continue to rely
on Schneiders ASA model to explain how high levels of fit are generated
in organizations, despite the fact that this model was developed to explain
organizational homogeneity (Schneider et al., 1995). Longitudinal investigations of what prompts changes in individuals levels of fit over time,
from preentry to turnover, are needed to take Schneiders theory to the
individual level. One set of studies that does address fit as an outcome are
those that examine how socialization practices influence subsequent levels
of fit (e.g, Cable & Parsons, 2001; Chatman, 1991; Grant & Bush, 1996).
What is lacking, however, is a comprehensive theory of how individual actions and organizational practices during and immediately following entry
impact both perceived and actual levels of fit. Without a good theory to
322
explain this process, it is difficult to predict when individuals will become

more like their coworkers and organizations, when jobs will change to
reflect individuals characteristics, when cognitive distortion will be used
to change perceived but not actual fit, or when attrition with be the primary
means by which greater levels of fit will be achieved. Kraimer (1997) proposed a framework of responses to socialization that included value belief
strength and initial values congruence as determinants of value change.
Similarly, the concept of job-role differentiation (Ilgen & Hollenbeck,
1990), which addresses when individuals alter the tasks they are expected
to perform through role-making, may have implications for when individuals will proactively address situations of misfit.
There is also need for future research on personal and situational characteristics that moderate fitoutcome relationships. Current results suggest
that fit is most influential if the dimensions measured are important to the
individual (similar to the concept of facet importance in job satisfaction
research; Edwards, 1996; McFarlin & Rice, 1992) and if the individual
has high self-esteem (Dineen et al., 2002; Orpen, 1974). A few studies
have examined personality traits (Miles & Perrewe, 1999; Shantz, 2003)
and demographic variables (Lovelace & Rosen, 1996) but have found little
support for their role as moderators. Even fewer studies have examined the
impact of situational moderators on fit effects; however, there is preliminary evidence that relationships with managers and coworkers (Erdogan
et al., 2004; Morris, 1995; Strauss et al., 2001) and even job performance
(Shaw & Gupta, 2004) may influence the nature of the fits relationship
with outcome variables. This area seems particularly in need of research,
as many managers face the challenge of minimizing the effects of poor fit
for their employees.
Perhaps because of its complexities, fit also tends to be examined independently, rather than within the context of other meaningful predictors
of work outcomes. Mitchells work (Mitchell et al., 2001; Mitchell &
Lee, 2001), which incorporates fit into a broader model of turnover, and
Masterson and Stampers (2003) theory of perceived organizational membership are noteworthy examples of a fourth direction for fit research.
Masterson and Stamper classify both PO fit and psychological contracts
as measures of the fulfillment of needs between employees and organizations in social exchange relationships. However, little research has
examined the relationship between these concepts, or how the study of
one might inform the other. One related concept is that of perceived organizational support (POS), defined as global beliefs about how much an
organization values its employees and their contributions (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986). A small number of studies have
examined the relationship between PO fit and POS with the results ranging anywhere from .03 (Erdogan et al., 2004) to .53 (Cable & DeRue,
323
2002). More research investigating the similarities and differences in these

concepts is necessary.
Methodologically too, there are areas that warrant additional research.
First, research that assesses objective fit is needed to better understand
how levels of analysis issues affect studies of fit. In particular, comparing
individual-level (i.e., when P and E are both reported by individuals) versus
cross-level (i.e., when P is reported by an individual, but E is an aggregate
of others ratings) is merited. Although common in studies of PS fit, rarely
have individual-level reports been used in PG or PO fit studies (exceptions
are Becker, 1992; Tikanmaki, 2001; Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991). Rather
than dismissing this approach, comparative research is called for. Second,
research comparing the effects of simultaneous assessments of multiple
kinds of fit is needed. Most studies have assumed that various types of fit
have additive effects (i.e., good fit on one dimension can compensate for
poor fit on another). However, poor fit with one aspect of the environment
may spill over into other areas, or that they may otherwise interact (Jansen
& Kristof-Brown, 2002). Only by examining multiple types of fit longitudinally and within the same investigation can these types of spillover
relationships be discerned.
Limitations and Strengths
Due to the fact that studies using objective criteria, including tenure,
turnover, withdrawal, job offer, and job acceptance, did not report reliabilities for the variables, analyses that include them are not fully corrected for measurement error. Although the reliabilities for such criteria are typically high and as such would not have a large impact on
the true score correlations, the meta-analytic estimates of fit relationships with these dependent variables are slightly conservative. In addition, because corrections for dichotomization were not able to be performed when turnover was the criterion, the meta-analyses for PJ fit
and PO fit with turnover are also slightly attenuated. A limitation of
this meta-analysis is also the number of studies available for moderator
analyses. Although every effort was made to collect all relevant studies,
there simply are not enough yet to examine moderators of PG and PS fit
relationships.
Perhaps, most importantly, we acknowledge that our results reflect the
strengths and weaknesses of every study in our sample. In his qualitative
review of the PJ and PV fit literature, Edwards concluded that nearly every
study reviewed contained methodological flaws that seriously threaten the
interpretability of the results obtained. (Edwards, 1991, p. 290). Specifically, studies using PSIs often suggest fit relationships that are not fully
supported when polynomial regression is used to reanalyze them (e.g.,
324
Edwards, 1996; Kalliath et al., 1999). Although we acknowledge the validity of this concern, there are several reasons we do not believe that
it is compelling enough to dismiss a tradition of research that continues
to stimulate interest more than half a century since its inception. First,
in most cases the polynomial regression results expand upon, but do not
nullify, the fundamental notion that the fit between P and E is beneficial to individuals. We now know that fit at high levels of a characteristic
is generally better than fit at low levels and that certain types of misfit are worse than others. However, these results have not negated the
conclusion that fit is typically preferable to misfit. Second, meta-analysis
allows measurement error due to unreliability in direct and indirect measures of fit, as well as in the criteria of interest, to be statistically corrected. This strengthens the conclusions that can be drawn from these
studies, versus the uncorrected results reported in single studies. Finally,
progress in any field can only be made by recognizing limitations in past
research, correcting them when feasible, and comparing the results with
those generated by new advances. Even if our research only serves as a
baseline against which future studies of fit are compared, it is an important part of the generation and dissemination of knowledge regarding fit
phenomena.
These limitations are countered by some important strengths. This
meta-analysis calculated empirical estimates on four major conceptualizations of fit and a wide range of attitudinal and behavioral criteria. We
provide an updated and comprehensive review of the literature (Edwards,
1991; Kristof, 1996; Verquer et al., 2003). Compared to the meta-analysis
of PO fit by Verquer et al. (2003), which included approximately 60 effect sizes across three criteria, we analyzed 450 effect sizes across 18
outcome variables for PO fit alone. This large jump was due, in part, to
the extensive array of sources utilized. In addition to searching the available databases, nearly a decade of conference programs was searched and
two dozen prominent fit researchers were contacted for additional studies. Finally, the snowballing technique was used by searching through
the references of primary fit studies and fit reviews to find additional
sources of data. We also corrected for unreliability in the predictors, which
Verquer et al. (2003) did not do, which allowed us to examine relationships
at the construct level. In addition, in line with recent trends in fit research,
we summarize studies using the polynomial regression technique that were
not discussed by Verquer et al.
Implications
Although there appears to be no perfect way to assess fit, there are

lessons to be learned from past approaches. First, scholars should consider
325
both the criteria (attitudes vs. behaviors), the context (preentry vs. postentry), and the underlying mechanisms by which they believe fit is operating
when selecting a measurement approach. There may be times when direct assessment of fit is preferable. For example, if fit is being examined
as an endogenous variable, such as a mediator of another relationship, it
may be beneficial to assess the concept directly to capture the cognitive
compatibility assessment at its broadest level. Under other conditions it
might be more meaningful to assess fit indirectly to allow comparisons
on particular values or goals, such as when a culture change program has
been implemented. In these cases the polynomial regression approach is
well advised. Second, it is important to recognize that all measures are not
created equal. Our results suggest that when possible, multiple conceptualizations and content dimensions should be specified in the measures,
regardless of whether they are direct or indirect. Rather than asking for
a global assessment of How well do you fit? scales should provide
guidance on the dimensions along which fit is to be assessed. Finally, researchers must ask themselves how important it is to understand the exact
form of the relationship underlying fit perceptions. When more precision
is necessary, as in cases where excess versus deficiency are expected to
have distinct results, the polynomial approach is recommended. When a
more holistic assessment of similarity is sufficient, PSIs may provide adequate information. When deciding upon a measurement strategy, no one
approach can meet all needs. Researchers must consider their research
question, sample characteristics, and prior evidence regarding the specific fit relationship before determining how to assess fit in a particular
investigation.
These results also have implications for management practices. First,
we present conclusive evidence that fit matters to applicants, recruiters,
and employees. It influences their attitudes, decisions, and behaviors in
the work domain. Yet, our results also suggest that fit is a complicated
concept, with multiple types of fit influencing all outcomes. Therefore,
managers wishing to maximize the benefits of fit are encouraged to attend
to the various aspects of the environment with which fit may occur. It is not
enough to increasingly refine a job description or indoctrinate employees
into a companys culture. Instead, a multifaceted approach that involves the
demands and supplies of jobs, coworker characteristics, and organizational
elements is needed. Broad frameworks such as the proposed content and
consequences of organizational socialization practices proposed by Chao,
OLeary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner (1994) may be used to guide
managers to specific techniques aimed at increasing the levels of actual
and perceived fit on particular dimensions. Managers should also attend
to the relative impact of various types of fit on outcomes. For example, a
tremendous amount of time is spent articulating the job requirements for
326
positions, but the demandsabilities fit has a minor impact on attitudes and
even performance when compared with the needssupplies fit. Recruiters
and managers would be wise to highlight what jobs and organizations
provide to maximize fit perceptions. Similarly, pairing individuals up with
similar others is advisable for enhancing fit assessments.
More than 10 years ago, Bowen, Ledford, and Nathan (1991) encouraged managers to consider both PO and PJ fit during organizational entry
because each may be related to different outcomes. Our results reinforce
the utility of such an approach. As the business world continues to require
managers to do more with less, criteria such as turnover and contextual
performance become important criteria. Selection techniques that assess
multiple types of fit need to be developed and validated against the criterion
they are most likely to affect.
Yet, there is little evidence that perceived fit during preentry periods is
an accurate reflection of objective fit relationships. This implies that decisions by both applicants and recruiters are being made based on flawed
(or at least uninformed) information. To improve decision making during preentry periods, fit-based instruments with demonstrated criterionrelated validity must be developed. Recently, commercial instruments
have been developed and are being offered to managers as ways to assess PO fit, but little research has been done on these measures (for an
exception see Hambleton, Kallieth, & Taylor, 2000). Most also are limited by a unidimensional perspective, focusing solely on one type of fit
and/or one content dimension. Research will be needed on the consequences of testing for fit during hiring. Negative applicant reactions, faking, and adverse impact are all issues that need to be better researched
before managers whole-heartedly embrace a hire for the company
attitude.
A final implication stems from the relative inaccuracy of perceived fit
assessments. This is particularly true for the PO fit, which an employee
may not be able to assess simply because organizational characteristics
may be difficult to identify. For example, perceived fit and actual fit on
ethical values may be distally related because managers spend little time
explicitly discussing their moral principles (Trevino, Hartman, & Brown,
2000). From the beginning of the recruitment process through long-term
employment, managers should pay attention to how clearly they are communicating work unit and organizational values. This should aid in the
attraction, hiring, and retention of individuals who share those values and
are inspired by an organization that reinforces them. This approach may
lead people who do not fit to leave the organization, so special attention
should be paid to maintaining a healthy level of diversity in order to avoid
the drawbacks associated with excessive homogeneity (Schneider et al.,
1995).
327
Conclusion
In sum, research on PE fit spans more than 100 years, and interest
in the field continues to grow. The number of dissertations conducted
recently in the specific domains of PJ, PG, and PO fit suggests an upward
trajectory for such research. We hope that this study, while raising new
questions, also provides some answers for those interested in what we
already know about how PE fit influences work-related outcomes. Results
provide strong evidence for the importance of multiple types of fit for
work-related attitudes and behaviors.
REFERENCES
References included in the reported meta-analyses results.

References included in the qualitative summary of polynomial regression studies.
Adkins CL. (1995). Previous work experience and organizational socialization: A longitudinal examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 839862.
Adkins B. (2000). Value congruence in groups and organizations: Examining consultants

connections to their organization and work groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University.
Adkins CL, Ravlin EC, Meglino BM. (1996). Value congruence between co-workers and
its relationship to work outcomes. Group and Organization Management, 21(4),
439460.
Adkins CL, Russell CJ, Werbel JD. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection process: The
role of work value congruence. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 47(3), 605623.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. (1977). Attitudebehavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888891.
Antonioni D, Park H. (2001). The effects of personality similarity on peer ratings of

contextual work behaviors. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 54, 331360.
Arnaud A, Ambrose M, Schminke M. (2002, August). Individual moral development and
ethical climate: The influence of PO fit on job attitudes. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.
Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation,
coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aryee S, Chay UW, Tan HH. (1994). An examination of the antecedents of subjective
career success among a managerial sample in Singapore. Human Relations, 47(5),
487509.
Assouline M, Meir EI. (1987). Meta-analysis of the relationship between congruence and
well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 319332.
Barber AE. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barrick MR, Mount MK. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 126.
Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK. (1998). Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377391.
Barry B, Stewart GL. (1997). Composition, process, and performance and in self-managed
groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6278.
328
Barsade SG, Ward AJ, Turner JDF, Sonnenfeld JA. (2000). To your hearts content: A
model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 802837.
Bauer TN, Green SG. (1996). Development of leadermember exchange: A longitudinal

test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 15381568.
Becker TE. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?
Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 232244.
Becker TE, Billings RS, Eveleth DM, Gilbert NL. (1996). Foci and bases of employee
commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal,
39(2), 464482.
Bedeian AG, Day DV. (1994). Concluding statement. Journal of Management, 20, 695698.
Beersma B, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Moon H, Conlon DE, Ilgen DR. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572590.
Bem DJ. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance
phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183200.
Billsberry J. (1997, August). The development and initial trial of a Likert-scale questionnaire for the indirect assessment of personorganisation value congruence. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Blau PM. (1960). Structural effects. American Sociological Review, 25, 178193.
Bodenman JR. (1996). Personorganization fit: How the communication of values is related
to perception of fit during the screening interview. Unpublished Dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University.
Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99109.
Boswell WR. (2001). Aligning employees with the organizations strategic objectives: Out
of line of sight out of mind. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Boudreau JW, Boswell WR, Judge TA, Bretz RD. (1998, August). Effects of personality,
cognitive ability, and fit on job search and separation among employed managers.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego.
Bowen DE, Ledford GE Jr, Nathan BR. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job.
Academy of Management Executive, 5(4), 3552.
Boxx WR, Odom RY, Dunn MG. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency and
their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An empirical examination
within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20(2), 195205.
Bretz RD, Judge TA. (1994). Personorganization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 3254.
Brkich M, Jeffs D, Carless SA. (2002). A global self-report measure of personjob fit.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 4351.
Bunderson JS. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees: Doctors responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 717741.
Burnett JR, Vaughan MJ, Moody D. (1997). The importance of personorganization value
congruence for female students joining college sororities. Journal of College Student
Development, 38, 297300.
Bushe GR, Tikanmaki A. (2003, August). PO fit and organizational justice in predicting post-acquisition attitudes. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual
Meeting, Seattle WA.
Byrne D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
329
Cable DM, Aiman-Smith L, Mulvey PW, Edwards JR. (2000). The sources and accuracy
of job applicants beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 10761085.
Cable DM, DeRue DS. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875884.
Cable DM, Edwards JR. (2004). Complementary and plementary fit: A theoretical and
empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822834.
Cable DM, Judge TA. (1996). personorganization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67(3),
294311.
Cable DM, Judge TA. (1997). Interviewers perceptions of personorganization fit and
organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546561.
Cable DM, Parsons CK. (2001). Socialization tactics and personorganization fit. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 54, 123.
Caldwell DF, OReilly CA III. (1990). Measuring personjob fit with a profile comparison
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648657.
Canger JM, Smith MA, Lutrick EC, Herst DEL. (2002, April). Supervisor Big Five
personality and subordinate attitudes. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Caplan RD. (1983). Personenvironment fit: Past, present, and future. In Cooper CL (Ed.),
Stress research (pp. 3578). New York: Wiley.
Caplan RD. (1987). Personenvironment fit theory: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248267.
Carless SA. (2002, April). Recruitment and job choice: How important are fit perceptions?
Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Carson RC. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Caverhill KM. (1994). The fit between person and organization in the context of worker cooperatives: Exploring some major components. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Toronto.
Chao GT, OLeary-Kelly AM, Wolf S, Klein HJ, Gardner PD. (1994). Organizational
socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
730743.
Chatman JA. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person
organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333349.
Chatman JA. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 459484.
Chaves WV, Levine EL. (2002, April). Testing the limits of personorganization fit: Effects
of value congruence in a sales organization. Paper presented at the 17th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto,
Canada.
Christiansen N, Villanova P, Mikulay S. (1997). Political influence compatibility: Fitting

the person to the climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 709730.
Cohen J, Cohen P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior
sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colbert AE. (2004). Understanding the effects of transformational leadership: The mediating role of leader-follower value congruence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Iowa.
Colbert AE, Mount MK, Harter JK, Witt LA, Barrick MR. (2004). Interactive effects of
personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 599609.
330
Cook J, Wall T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 3952.
Cronbach LJ. (1958). Proposals leading to analytic treatment of social perception scores.
In Tagiuri R, Petrullo L (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp.
353379). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Da Silva N, Thomas A, Mayoral L, Yoshihara M, Hutcheson J. (2002, April). Organizational strategy and employee outcomes: A personorganization fit perspective.
Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology.
Dawis RV. (1992). Personenvironment fit and job satisfaction. In Cranny CJ, Smith PC,
Stone EF (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects
their performance. New York: Lexington Books.
Dawis, Lofquist (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Day DV, Bedeian AG. (1995). Personality similarity and work-related outcomes among
African-American nursing personnel: A test of the supplementary model of personenvironment congruence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46(1), 5570.
Delobbe N, Vandenberghe C. (2000). A four-dimensional model of organizational commitment among Belgian employees. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
16, 125138.
Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer HM. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269
277.
Dickinson JM, Horvath M. (2004, April). P-O fit and specific values in community service organizations. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Dineen BR. (working paper). Customization of fit information in a web-based recruitment context: Effects on fit perceptions, application decisions and applicant pool
characteristics.
Dineen BR, Ash SR, Noe RA. (2002). A web of applicant attraction: Personorganization
fit in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),
723734.
Dorr D, Honea S, Posner R. (1980). Ward atmosphere and psychiatric nurses job satisfaction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 455461.
Edwards JR. (1991). Personjob fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In Cooper CLRIT (Ed.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283357). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Edwards JR. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study
of congruence in organizational research. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 46, 641
665.
Edwards JR. (1994). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study
of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307324.
Edwards JR. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the personenvironment

fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292339.
Edwards JR, Caplan RD, Harrison RV. (1998). Personenvironment fit theory: Conceptual
foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In Cooper CL
(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edwards JR, Harrison RV. (1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional
reexamination of the relationship between personenvironment fit and strain. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 628648.
331
Edwards JR, Parry ME. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an
alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management
Journal, 36(6), 15771613.
Edwards JR, Rothbard NP. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination
of personenvironment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior
& Human Decision Processes, 77(2), 85129.
Ekehammer B. (1974). Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 10261048.
Elfenbein HA, OReilly CA III. (2001, August). Fitting in: The effects of relational demography and personorganization fit on group process and performance. Paper
presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Washington, DC.
Endler NS, Magnussen D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Erdogan B, Bauer TN. (2004, August). Examining boundary conditions of LMX to satisfaction relationship: Personjob fit and management style. Paper presented at the
Annual Academy of Management Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Erdogan B, Kraimer ML, Liden RC. (2004). Personorganization fit and work attitudes:
The moderating role of leadermember exchange. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 57,
305332.
Ehrhart KMH. (2001). The role of job characteristic beliefs and personality in understanding personjob fit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,
College Park.
Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchinson S, Sowa D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507.
Feldman DC, Leana CR, Bolino MC. (2002). Underemployment and relative deprivation
among re-employed executives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 453471.
Ferris GR, Youngblood SA, Yates VL. (1985). Personality, training performance, and
withdrawal: A test of the persongroup fit hypothesis for organizational newcomers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 377388.
Festinger L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117140.
Festinger L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Finegan JE. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on organizational
commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 149
169.
Finegan JE, Chong A. (1996, April). The relationship between organizational values, individual values and job-related attitudes. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego,
CA.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fletcher TD, Major DA, Davis DD. (2004, August). Congruence in personality and perceptions of climate competitiveness in the workplace: A three-dimensional look at
the effects on job initiative and perceived stress. Paper presented at Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Fox S, Spector PE. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence,

general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: Its not all just G.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 203220.
French JRP Jr, Caplan RD, Harrison RV. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain.
London: Wiley.
332
French JRP Jr, Rogers W, Cobb S. (1974). Adjustment as personenvironment fit. In Coelho
DAHGV, Adams JE (Ed.), Coping and adaptation. New York: Basic Books.
Fried YC, Ferris GR. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and
meta-analysis. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 40, 287322.
Garcia MF. (2004, August). An interviewers fit perceptions of an applicant: The role of
actual and perceived similarity. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Gelfand MJ, Kuhn M, Radhakrishnan P. (1996). The effects of value differences on social
interaction processes and job outcomes in organizations: Implications for managing
diversity. In Ruderman M, Hughes-James M, Jackson SE (Eds.), Selected research
on team diversity (pp. 5371).
George JM, Jones GR. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive
effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 318325.
Gill H, Finegan JE. (2000, April). The relation between personorganization fit and organizational commitment. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Glomb TM, Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Wanberg CR, Ahlburg D, Chuanhg A. (2003, April).
Longitudinal examination of multiple dimensions of personenvironment fit. Paper
presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Orlando, FL.
Good LR, Nelson DA. (1971). Effects of persongroup and intragroup attitude similarity
on perceived group attractiveness and cohesiveness. Psychonomic Science, 25(4),
215217.
Goodman SA, Svyantek DJ. (1999). Personorganization fit and contextual performance:
Do shared values matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 254275.
Graen GB. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In Dunnette
MD (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 12011245).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Grant ES, Bush AJ. (1996). Salesforce socialization tactics: Building organizational value
congruence. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16(3), 1732.
Graves LM, Powell GN. (1995). The effect of sex similarity on recruiters evaluations of
actual applicants: A test of the similarityattraction paradigm. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 8598.
Graves LM, Powell GN. (1998). An investigation of sex discrimination in recruiters

evaluations of actual applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 2029.
Greenhaus JH, Seidel C, Marinis M. (1983). The impact of expectations and values on job
attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 394417.
Griffeth RW, Hom PW, Gaertner S. (2001). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates
of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the
next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463488.
Gully SM, Incalcaterra KA, Joshi A, Beaubien JM. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy,
potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of
observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819832.
Hall DT, Schneider B, Nygren HT. (1975). Personal factors in organizational identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176190.
Hambleton AJ, Kalliath T, Taylor P. (2000). Criterion-related validity of a measure of

personjob and personorganization fit. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 29(2),
8085.
Harris SG, Mossholder KW. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence
with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22(4), 527547.
333
Harrison RV. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In Cooper CL, Payne R (Eds.),
Stress at work (pp. 175205). New York: Wiley.
Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 96107.
Harrison DA, Shaffer MA, Bhaskar P. (2002, August). Moving outward from organizations:
Person-culture fit in the experiences of expatriates. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.
Heider F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Helford MC. (1995). Psychological climate and organizational commitment. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago.
Herman JB, Hulin CL. (1973). Managerial satisfactions and organizational roles: An investigation of Porters need deficiency scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57,
118124.
Higgins CA. (2000). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of
fit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa.
Higgins CA, Judge TA. (2003, April). Effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter
perceptions of fit. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Hobman EV, Bordia P, Gallois C. (2003). Consequences of feeling dissimilar from others
in a work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 301325.
Hofmann DA, Jones LM. (2003, April). Personality, normative behavior, and organizational
performance. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Holland JL. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hollenbeck JR. (1989). Control theory and the perception of work environments: The
effects of focus of attention on affective and behaviors reactions to work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43, 406430.
Howard JL, Ferris GR. (1996). The employment interview context: Social and situational
influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112
136.
Hrebiniak LG. (1974). Effects of job level and participation on employee attitudes and
perceptions of influence. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 649662.
Hunter JE, Cohen SH. (1974). Correcting for unreliability in nonlinear models of attitude
change. Psychometrika, 39, 445468.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hutcheson JM, (1999). An examination of three levels of personenvironment fit. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Houston.
Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR. (1990). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In Dunnette
MD, Hough LM (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
2, pp. 165207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
James I. (2003). Employees as stakeholders: An examination of personorganization fit

and corporate social performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont
Graduate University.
Jansen KJ, Kristof-Brown AL. (2002, August). Beyond fit happens: A temporal theory
of fitting at work. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
Denver, CO.
Jansen KJ, Kristof-Brown AL. (in press). Marching to the beat of a different drummer:
Examining the impact of congruent pace. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes.
334
Jansen KJ, Kristof-Brown A, Michael JH. (2004, April). The role of enabling environments
for persongroup fit. Paper presented at 19th Annual Conference of the Society for
Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field
study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 741763.
Johnson GJ, Johnson WR. (1999). Perceived overqualification and health: A longitudinal
analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 1428.
Joyce WF, Slocum JW. (1982). Climate discrepancy: Refining the concepts of psychological
and organizational climate. Human Relations, 35, 951972.
Judge TA, Bretz RD. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261271.
Judge TA, Cable DM. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 50(2), 359394.
Judge TA, Ferris GR. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resource staffing decisions.
Human Resource Planning, 15(4), 4767.
Judge TA, Kristof-Brown A, Darnold T. (2005, April). Personorganization goal fit and
job satisfaction: Role of motives underlying goal pursuit. Paper presented at the 20th
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los
Angeles, CA.
Kalliath TJ, Bluedorn AC, Strube MJ. (1999). A test of value congruence effects. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 11751198.
Kanfer R, Ackerman PL. (1998). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative aptitudetreatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 657690.
Kennedy M, Huff J. (2004). PO and PJ fit: Testing a three-factor model of subjective fit
perceptions. Paper presented at AOM, New Orleans, LA.
Kolenko TA, (1986). The effects of individual-task congruence on employee performance,

satisfaction, and tenure (personjob fit). Unpublished doctoral disseration. University of WisconsinMadison.
Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research
in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein K,
Kozlowski S (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 390). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kraimer ML. (1997). Organization goals and values: A socialization model. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 425448.
Kreiner G. (2002, August). Domain segmentation and work-family conflict: A person

environment fit perspective. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual
Meeting, Denver, CO.
Krishnan VR. (2002). Transformational leadership and value system congruence. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 15(1), 1933.
Kristof AL. (1996). Personorganization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 49(1), 1
49.
Kristof-Brown AL. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters

perceptions of personjob and personorganization fit. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY,
53, 643671.
Kristof-Brown A, Barrick M, Stevens CK. (In press). When opposites attract: A multisample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal
of Personality.
335
Kristof-Brown AL, Jansen KJ, Colbert AE. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(5), 985993.
Kristof-Brown A, Stevens CK. (2001). Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members personal mastery and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 10831095.
Kulka RA. (1979). Interaction as person-environment fit. In Kahle LR (Ed.), New directions
for methodology of behavioral science (pp. 5571). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lachman R, Aranya N. (1986). Evaluation of alternative models of commitments and job

attitudes of professionals. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 227243.
LaPolice CC, Sharpe JP. (2004, April). P-O fit and work attitudes: Examining multiple
value dimensions. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for
Lau DC, Murnighan JK. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional
dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325341.
Lauver KJ, Kristof-Brown A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees perceptions of

personjob and personorganization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454
470.
Law KS, Wong C, Mobley WH. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 741755.
Lawler EE III, Hall DT. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement,
satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305312.
Lawler EE III, Mohrman SA, Ledford GE Jr. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management
in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lee TW, Mowday RT. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowdays model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal,
30, 721743.
Levinthal D, March JG. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,
14, 95112.
Lewin K. (1935). Dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Stilwell D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development
of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662674.
Lievens F, Decaesteker C, Coetsier P. (2001). Organizational attractiveness for prospective
applicants: A personorganization fit perceptive. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 3051.
Livingstone LP, Nelson DL, Barr SH. (1997). Personenvironment fit and creativity:
An examination of supplyvalue and demandability versions of fit. Journal of
Management, 23(2), 119146.
Locke EA. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309336.
Locke EA. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette M (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 12971350). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Lofquist LH, Dawis RV. (1969). Adjustments to work. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Loher BT, Noe RA, Moeller NL, Fitzgerald MP. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation
of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280
289.
Lopez EM, Greenhaus JH. (1978). Self-esteem, race, and job satisfaction. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 13, 7583.
Lovelace K, Rosen B. (1996). Differences in achieving personorganization fit among

diverse groups of managers. Journal of Management, 22(5), 703722.
336
Luke DA, Roberts L, Rappaport J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-group fit
predictors of self-help group attendance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
29, 216239.
Lutrick EC. (2003). Personorganization fit: Does it matter who describes the actual organizations culture? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida.
Lutrick EC, Moriarty KO. (2002, April). Measuring perceived P-O fit directly and indirectly: Does method matter? Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Lyness KS, Thompson DE. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched
samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359375.
Mastaler SE. (1999). A study to explore the role of executive search consultants in assessing
personorganization fit at organizational entry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
California School of Professional PsychologyLos Angeles.
Masterson SS, Stamper CL. (2003). Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate
framework representing the employeeorganization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 473490.
McCulloch MC, Turban DB. (2001, April). Using personorganization fit to predict job
departure in call centers. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
McCulloch MC, Turban DB. (2002, April). Comparing personorganization fit and cognitive ability in a selection battery. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
McFarlin DB, Rice RW. (1992). The role of facet importance as a moderator in job satisfaction processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 4155.
Meglino BM, Ravlin EC. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351389.
Meglino BM, Ravlin EC, Adkins CL. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 424432.
Meglino BM, Ravlin EC, Adkins CL. (1991). Value congruence and satisfaction with a
leader: An examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44(5), 481495.
Merton RK, Kitt A. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In
Merton RK, Lazarfeld P (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of The American
soldier. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Mickel AE. (2000). The role of money in personenvironment fit. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Washington.
Miles AK, Perrewe PL. (1999, August). An examination of ergonomic training on organizational strain: A person-environment fit perspective. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Miles AK, Perrewe PL. (2001, August). Can I get a chair that fits? An examination of the
orgonimic design and training influence of person-environment fit, control and strain.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Milliken FJ, Martins LL. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 25,
402433.
Mitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ, Erez M. (2001). Why people stay: Using
job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,
44, 11021122.
Mitchell TR, Lee TW. (2001). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 23, 189248.
337
Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 249265.
Morris SG. (1995). Turnover among professionals: The role of personculture fit and
mentoring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver.
Muchinsky PM, Monahan CJ. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3),
268277.
Murray HA. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McKee DO, McMurrian R. (1997). An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context.
Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 8598.
Netemeyer RG, Burton S, Johnston MW. (1995). A nested comparison of four models of
the consequences of role perception variables. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 61, 7793.
Nunally JC. (1962). The analysis of profile data. Psychological Bulletin, 59, 311319.
Nyambegera SM, Daniels K, Sparrow P. (2001). Why fit doesnt always matter: The
impact of HRM and cultural fit on job involvement of Kenyan employees. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 50, 109140.
OReilly CA, Chatman J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492499.
OReilly CA, Chatman J, Caldwell DF. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing personorganization fit. Academy of Management
Journal, 34(3), 487516.
Orpen C. (1974). A cognitive consistency approach to job satisfaction. Psychological

Reports, 35, 239245.
Ostroff C. (1993). Relationships between person-environment congruence and organizational effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 18(1), 103122.
Ostroff C, Harrison DA. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 260270.
Ostroff C, Rothausen TJ. (1997). The moderating effect of tenure in person-environment
fit: A field study in educational organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 173188.
Parrott K. (2004). Colored perceptions in employee recruitment: What do your policies

imply about your organization? Unpublished masters thesis, Clarkson University.
Parsons F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Payne R. (1970). Factor analysis of a Maslow-type need satisfaction questionnaire. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 23, 251268.
Pervin LA. (1968). Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment
fit. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 5668.
Phillips JS, Barrett GV, Rush MC. (1978). Job structure and age satisfaction. Aging and
Work, 1, 109119.
Phillips AS, Bedeian AG. (1994). Leaderfollower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 990
1001.
Piasentin KA, Chapman DS. (2004, April). Perceived similarity and complementarity as
predictors of subjective personorganization fit. Paper presented at the 19th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago,
IL.
338
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Porter LW. (1961). A study of perceived job satisfactions in bottom and middle management
jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 110.
Porter LW. (1962). Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment
as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 375384.
Posner BZ. (1992). Personorganization values congruence: No support for individual

differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45(4), 351361.
Ravlin EC, Ilsev A, Meglino BM. (2002, April). Personorganization fit and adaptability and change. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Ravlin EC, Ritchie CM. (2003, August). Sharing in-use and espoused values: Attitudinal
and behavioral outcomes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual
Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Reichheld FF. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits, and
lasting value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Rice RW, McFarlin DB, Bennett DE. (1989). Standards of comparison and job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 591598.
Rice RW, McFarlin DB, Hunt RG, Near JP. (1985). Organizational work and the perceived
quality of life: Toward a conceptual model. Academy of Management Review, 10,
296310.
Riordan CM. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. In Ferris GR (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resource management (Vol. 19, pp. 131173). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Riordan CM, Weatherly EW, Vandenberg RJ, Self RM. (2001). The effects of pre-entry
experiences and socialization tactics on newcomer attitudes and turnover. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 159176.
Rosman P, Burke RJ. (1980). Job satisfaction, self-esteem, and the fit between perceived
self and job on valued competencies. Journal of Personality, 105, 259269.
Roth PL, Bevier CA, Bobko P, Switzer FS III, Tyler P. (2001). Ethnic group differences
in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 54, 297330.
Ryan AM, Horvath M. (1997, August). Confirmatory biases in assessments of organizational fit. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston,
MA.
Ryan AM, Horvath M, Kriska SD. (2000, April). Organizational familiarity, organizational image, fit, and application decisions. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans,
LA.
Ryan AM, Kristof-Brown AL. (2003). Personalitys role in personorganization fit: Unresolved issues. In Barrick M, Ryan AM (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 262288).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan AM, Schmit MJ. (1996). An assessment of organizational climate and P-E fit: A tool
for organizational change. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
4(1), 7595.
Rynes SL, Gerhart B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant fit: An exploratory
investigation. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 43(1), 1335.
Saks AM, Ashforth BE. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between
job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 50(2), 395426.
339
Saks AM, Ashforth BE. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends
on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 646654.
Salancik G, Pfeffer J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224253.
Salvaggio AN. (2004, April). To help or to leave: Persongroup fit as a correlate of aggregate
organizational citizenship behavior and turnover. Paper presented at the 19th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago,
IL.
Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
11201136.
Scheu CR, Ryan AM. (2001, April). Achieving recruiting goals: Applying what we know
about personorganization fit across a range of organizational image. Paper presented
at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Schein EH. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd edition). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Schmidt FL, Le H. (2004). Software for the HunterSchmidt meta-analysis methods. University of Iowa, Department of Management & Organization, Iowa City, IA. 42242.
Schneider B. (1975). Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational

realities revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 459465.
Schneider B. (1987). The people make the place. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 40, 437
453.
Schneider B. (2001). Fits about fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1),
141152.
Schneider B, Goldstein HW, Smith DB. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48(4), 747773.
Schneider B, Salvaggio AN, Subirats M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction for
climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 220229.
Schneiderman J, Sachau D. (2005). The effect of personorganization fit on job satisfaction,

performance, and intent to leave.
Schwepker CJJ, Ferrell OC, Ingram TN. (1997). The influence of ethical climate and
ethical conflict on role stress in the sales force. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 25(2), 99108.
Sekiguchi T. (2003). The role of personorganization fit and personjob fit in managers
hiring decisions: The effects of work status and occupational characteristics of job
openings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Washington.
Senger J. (1971). Managers perceptions of subordinates competence as a function of

personal value orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 415423.
Shantz CA. (2003). Personorganization fit: Individual differences, socialization, and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne State University.
Shaw JB. (2004). The development and analysis of a measure of group faultlines. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 66114.
Shaw JB, Gupta N. (2004). Job complexity, performance, and well-being: When does
suppliesvalues fit matter? PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 57, 847879.
Sheffey SC. (1994). Personorganization fit: A quantitative assessment of the match between actual and ideal culture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University
of Chicago.
Sheridan JE, Slocum JW Jr. (1975). The direction of the causal relationship between job
satisfaction and work performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 159172.
340
Shin H, Holland B. (2004, April). P-O fit as a moderator of personality-job performance

relations. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Shockley-Zalabak P, Morley DD. (1989). Adhering to organizational culture: What

does it mean? Why does it matter? Group and Organization Studies, 14(4), 483
500.
Shore LM, Martin HJ. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation
to work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42, 625638.
Sims RL, Keon TL. (1997). Ethical work climate as a factor in the development of person
organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 10951105.
Sims RL, Kroeck KG. (1994). The influence of ethical fit on employee satisfaction, commitment and turnover. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12), 939948.
Slocum JW Jr. (1971). Motivation in managerial levels: Relationship of need satisfaction

to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 312316.
Slocombe TE, Bluedorn AC. (1999). Organizational behavior implications of the congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 7599.
Smith MA. (2002, April). Subordinatesupervisor fit using the Big Five personality constructs. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Soh S. (2000). Organizational socialization of newcomers: A longitudinal study of organizational enculturation processes and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Ohio State University.
Sorensen JE, Sorensen TL. (1974). The conflict of professionals in bureaucratic organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 98108.
Spokane AR. (1985). A review of research on personenvironment congruence in Hollands
theory of careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 306343.
Strauss JP, Barrick MR, Connerley ML. (2001). An investigation of personality similarity
effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role of
familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
637657.
Stumpf SA, Hartman K. (1984). Individual exploration to organizational commitment or

withdrawal. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 308329.
Sturm PR. (1998). Personorganization fit in service firms: Measuring service provider
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Virginia Commonwealth University.
Super DE. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8, 185190.
Taris R, Feij JA. (2001). Longitudinal examination of the relationship between suppliesvalues fit and work outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1),
5280.
Tepeci M. (2001). The effect of personal values, organizational culture, and person
organization fit on individual outcomes in the restaurant industry. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University.
Tikanmaki AK. (2001). The impact of personorganization fit and perceptions of justice
on employee organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust towards management after an acquisition. Unpublished masters thesis. Simon Fraser University.
Tom VR. (1971). The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 573592.
Ton MN, Hansen JC. (2001). Using a personenvironment fit framework to predict satisfaction and motivation in work and marital roles. Journal of Career Assessment,
9(4), 315331.
341
Torkelson GE. (1997). A study to examine the relationship between supervisor-subordinate

similarity, performance ratings and promotions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Tranberg M, Slane S, Ekeberg SE. (1993). The relation between interest congruence and
satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 253264.
Trevino LK, Hartman LP, Brown M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review,
42(4), 128142.
Turban DB, Dougherty TW. (1994). Role of protege personality in receipt of mentoring
and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688702.
Turban DB, Jones AP. (1988). Supervisorsubordinate similarity: Types, effects and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228234.
Turban DB, Lau C, Ngo H, Chow IHS, Si SX. (2001). Organizational attractiveness of firms
in the Peoples Republic of China: A personorganization fit perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 194206.
Tziner A. (1987). Congruency issue retested using Finemans achievement climate notion.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(1), 6378.
Valentine S, Godkin L, Lucero M. (2002). Ethical context organizational commitment, and

personorganization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 349360.
Van Vianen AEM. (2000). Personorganization fit: The match between newcomers and
recruiters preferences for organizational cultures. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 53,
113149.
Van Vianen AEM. (in press). A review of personenvironment fit research: Prospects for
personnel selection. In Evers A, Voskuijl O, Anderson N (Eds.), Handbook of selection. Boston: Blackwell.
Van Vianen AE, de Pater I, Kristof-Brown AL, Johnson E. (2004). Fitting in: The impact
of surface-and deep-level cultural diversity on expatriates adjustment. Academy of
Vancouver JB, Schmitt NW. (1991). An exploratory examination of personorganization

fit: Organizational goal congruence. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44(2), 333352.
Vancouver JB, Millsap RE, Peters PA. (1994). Multilevel analysis of organizational goal
congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 666679.
Vandenberg RJ, Scarpello V. (1990). The matching model: An examination of the processes
underlying realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 6067.
Vandenberg RJ, Self RM, Seo JH. (1994). A critical-examination of the internalization,
identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management, 20,
123140.
Vernon RN, Bergman SM, Bowler MC, Engel EA, Zelno JA, Rentsch JR, Woehr DJ.
(2003, April). Similarity vs. diversity: The impact of personality congruence on
teams. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Verquer ML, (2002). Fitting in at work: A comparison of the relationships between person
organization fit and persongroup fit with work attitudes. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Central Michigan University.
Verquer ML, Beehr TA, Wagner SH. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person
organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473489.
Vigoda E. (2000). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical examination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior,
and in-role performance. Public Personnel Management, 29(2), 185210.
Vigoda E, Ben-Zion E. (2002, month). Organizational image and army officers intentions
to leave the service for a job in high-tech firms. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.
342
Vigoda E, Cohen A. (2002). Influence tactics and perceptions of organizational politics: A

longitudinal study. Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 311324.
Wanous JP, Lawler EE III. (1972). Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 56, 95105.
Wayne SJ, Liden RC. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings:
A longitidinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232260.
Weeks WA, Chonko LB, Kahle LR. (1989). Performance congruence and value congruence
impact on sales force annual sales. Academy of Marketing Science, 17(4), 345351.
Welchans TD. (1996). The effects of telecommuting and communication media on perceived
value congruence, organizational support and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Ohio State University.
Werbel JD, Gilliland SW. (1999). Personenvironment fit in the selection process. In Ferris
GR (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 17, pp.
209243). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Werbel J, Landau J, DeCarlo TE. (1996). The relationship of pre-entry variables to early employment organizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16(2), 2536.
Westerman JW, Cyr LA. (2004). An integrative analysis of personorganization fit theories.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 252261.
Wexley KN, Pulakos ED. (1983). The effects of perceptual congruence and sex on subordinates performance appraisals of their managers. Academy of Management Journal,
26, 666676.
White AT, Spector PE. (1987). An investigation of age-related factors in the age-jobsatisfaction relationship. Psychology and Aging, 2, 261265.
Williams CR. (1990). Deciding when, how and if to correct turnover correlations. Journal
Witt LA. (1998). Enhancing goal congruence: A solution to organizational politics. Journal
Witt LA, Nye LG. (1992). Organizational goal congruence and job attitudes revisited.
Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Civil Aeromedical Inst.
Xie JL. (1996). Karaseks model in the Peoples Republic of China: Effects of job demands,
control, and individual differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1594
1618.
Xie JL, Johns G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of
Yukl G, Fu PP. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219232.

Publicatie Consequences of Individuals Fit at Work

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Publicatie Consequences of Individuals Fit at Work

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

2005, 58, 281342

CONSEQUENCES OF INDIVIDUALS FIT AT WORK:

This meta-analysis investigated the relationships between personjob

Theories of person-environment (PE) interaction have been prevalent

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

fitoutcome relationships and evaluating the empirical evidence regarding

Based in the tradition of interactional psychology, the notion of people

Interactional psychology includes numerous studies that assess PE fit

& Fitzgerald, 1985), or situations may be viewed as moderators of the

PE fit research is generally characterized by matching individuals to

Instead, we emphasize an area closely related to PV fit but defined more

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

their needs, as much as the extent to which an individuals perception

The third category of research we review is persongroup (PG) or

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

similarity on these types of characteristics, and that over time it is fit on

Even after these exclusions, there is still remarkable heterogeneity in

relationships, with an emphasis on PJ and PO fit because of the number

Complementary versus supplementary. Muchinsky and Monahan

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

decline, if employees do not have adequate attentional resources (Kanfer

supplementary fit, by rephrasing the questions to What values are most

Direct versus indirect measures. A potentially meaningful distinction

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

(Kristof, 1996). Most scholars agree that perceived fit1 is defined by a

various dimensions to be captured in their ratings. Alternatively, indirect

Assessing the environment. In cases of objective fit, Van Vianen

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

impacts on outcomes (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof-Brown, 2000), we

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

One of the most dramatic changes to studies of PE fit in recent years

To identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analyses, we searched

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (19952004) and Academy of

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

included in the PS fit meta-analyses.2 Twenty-seven studies provided 34

We coded the characteristics of each study on multiple dimensions.

We conducted the meta-analyses using the formulas from Hunter

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

Moderator analyses were conducted to test the theoretically derived

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

All common rater (ACR)

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

Avg r Lower Upper

Job satisfaction 9 1822

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

analyses.3 It should be noted that for PJ fit, conceptualization (demands

The third moderator we examined was whether the sample contained

Table 2 presents the correlations from the meta-analyses of PO fit

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

The third set of meta-analyses provides estimates of the relationship

theoretical justifications for moderators discussed previously would apply

The meta-analysis results for PS fit are presented in Table 4. All of

Consistent with our predictions, attitudes referencing particular aspects

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

to PO (.44), PG (.31), or PS fit (.44). Organizational commitment was most

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

A second explanation is that there are considerable barriers to acting on

For PJ and PO fit there were sufficient studies to examine several

AMY L. KRISTOF-BROWN ET AL.

While conducting this meta-analysis, we became aware of several